Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

First wife of US President Theodore Roosevelt, died long before he ran for president and was, therefore, not First Lady. Searches will turn up info on her but only in relation first to her husband based on their four-year marriage. No notability on her own, not even while she was married to Roosevelt. Fails WP:GNG and, as a result, fails WP:BIO as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED or a given based on WP:1E. If her husband had not become famous after her death, we wouldn't be here discussing this at all as the article wouldn't have been written in the first place. It's her husband who has the notability, not his deceased wife. Article's content  could should be merged into Theodore Roosevelt if there is no consensus for deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIOFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Not noted for anything other than her relationship with Theodore Roosevelt. No prejudice against a redirect to his article, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I read the arguments to keep on the previous AfD and I concur. The subject is notable, it's acknowledged that she influenced Roosevelt, and there is enough verified information about her to support an article. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Influencing someone ≠ Notability. Frankly, the previous "keep" arguments overlooked how just about all reliable sources discussing her really pertain more to the President himself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People, places and things can gain notability because of public interest, even if people are only curious about those subjects because of their proximity to highly notable people. It is simply a fact that there is public interest in people associated with people considered to be of great historic notability, and this can result in long-term coverage in reliable sources, including encyclopedias. I really don't see how you can argue this is not true. In terms of places, if a really famous person once lived there, even if it's way "before" they became notable, there's a good chance we will probably celebrate that space by putting it on our "Big Book of Notable Buildings!" (ie National Register of Historic Places). Or if the person was REALLY famous, he didn't even have to live there but let's say someone he was related to lived there and our notable person probably visited though we have no specifics... even though the actual building is long gone, we'll build a cool replica and declare the surrounding land to be a historic park. All because of loose proximity with a notable person. If you sincerely don't believe that things can be notable purely by proximity/relationship with a notable person, then there are a lot of articles on Wikipedia I should see you attempting to delete, if you apply that simple criteria. I will give you some suggestions. How about Gerald Ford's dad, who was an alcoholic who had no relationship with his son?  Stalin's first wife, who he was only married to from 1906-1907, or John Lennon's dad, who also had almost no relationship with his son, but has a full biography that even includes an "urban legend" section!? And seriously, don't cite the "Other stuff exists" (which is an essay, not an actual guideline by the way). If there is an important rule that you apparently feel is a black-and-white issue and not subjective, you should not have a problem applying it to other articles. That's the whole point of having a rule: if it only applied to one thing one time or is applied abstractly, it's not actually a rule; it's just a decision.  —Мандичка YO 😜 17:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, please keep the focus on Alice's article for this AFD; other subjects should be dealt with in separate discussions. Secondly, see WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (people). Third, "only essay" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions as it undermines the value and insight that essays can bring. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a big bold tag at the top of every essay that declares THIS IS NOT A WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINE, so I don't know why there's any point in pretending otherwise. People observing may think see the alphabet soup and incorrectly infer that a guideline is being cited, when it's really just an essay you personally agree with. And, again, if you cite that something is not notable because of a very strict guideline, then you should have no problem applying that guideline to any article. It's a no brainer. You're supposed to WP:BEBOLD, remember! Otherwise, the claim that you are applying any neutral criteria rings hollow and is a demonstration of "I just don't believe THIS person is notable." —Мандичка YO 😜 18:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (Shakes head in disappointment) there is nothing about the pages I linked that isn't neutral, and I DID apply guidelines in this AFD. So did Winkelvi. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for the reasons spelled out in the prior AfD. It doesn't improve the encyclopedia, or anyone wanting to use it, to bury significant well sourced, well organized information like this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't about reliability of sources or the organization of information. Also, "bury[ing]" information isn't a convincing argument per WP:LOSE, which states effort/information put into something does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines and In some cases content can be merged to other relevant articles. All notable information on her can simply go into her husband's article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is ample coverage of her life in reliable sources, including ANB (see last AfD for DGG's arguments on this) and a book about her. The earlier merge proposal from January was also being heavily opposed for this reason, and because there is too much content to merge to Roosevelt's bio (starting an AfD with an ongoing merge proposal is also a bad idea). A merge would just lead to a spin-out article on his first marriage, essentially recreating this bio. Leave it be. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are sufficient sources out there for her to pass out notability requirements, as shown in the previous AFD. The ongoing merge discussion on TR's talkpage is failing because she is notable enough. Calidum T&#124;C 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: When this is closed, the closing admin should do the honor of putting the four-month old merge request out of its misery, since both really on the same fundamentally flawed interpretation of our notability guidelines. It doesn't matter why an article gets coverage in reliable sources; it only matters that that coverage exists. Calidum T&#124;C 18:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason DOES matter; one does not become notable simply for being discussed in a notable person's relationships. Notability guidelines FOR BIOGRAPHIES are more nuanced than simply "It has been covered in reliable sources". WP:BIO is the relevant guideline to apply, and it indicates she's not a notable person for only being noted as one's wife. See the WP:BIO1E and WP:BIOFAMILY sections in particular. It is in fact the "keep" votes that are misunderstanding and/or erroneously disregarding BIO. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm absolutely floored at the number of Wikipedia editors with a reasonable amount of edits behind them who have no clue regarding WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:1E. Adequate sources does not notability make.  Further, if you take the time to actually look into those sources, you will find that the focus of those sources is on President Roosevelt, not his first wife.  What's more, one life event (marrying TR) that wouldn't have passed GNG when it occurred also does not make for notability.  Like I said in my OP at the top of this page, if TR had never become president, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  Those of you !voting "Keep" might want to consider the fact that the only thing making her notable based on your reasoning is that she was briefly married to someone who became president long after she died.  Because she died long before he was elected, that isn't notability for HER per Wikipedia standards, policy, or guidelines, it's notability for HIM.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:INHERITED is part of an essay. It says not to argue that an article should be kept because of passing associations to something else. WP:BIO is what you want, which says not to create bios just due to relationships. But it is trumped by WP:GNG. WP:1E does not apply -she is not known for any one 'event'. The basic criterion for notability is: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." She certainly passes that assessment, and absent WP:BLP issues (long dead), WP:V issues (sources check out), or any other policy issues, that basic guideline is all we need to pay heed to. Fences  &amp;  Windows  07:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, GNG doesn't trump BIO here. GNG is simply a bare minimum needed for any type of article to meet notability. BIO is the specific notability critiera used for people, and she fails BIO regardless of GNG. Nothing notable outside of a relationship, and just about every reliable secondary source that discusses her really pertains more about her husband. We have specific notability criteria for a reason, so it should be put to use. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONLYESSAY, . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 11:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We follow WP:BASIC, a restatement of WP:GNG that notes exclusions. But no exclusions apply, as WP:1E is not relevant, no BLP concerns or other policy concerns arise, and the guidance on "Invalid criteria" says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" [my emphasis]. Absent a policy reason or other reason to exclude this bio, the significant coverage of her life in multiple reliable sources meets our inclusion criteria. Fences  &amp;  Windows  12:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problems with that are 1) she fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY, 2) The (reliable) sources are really more about Theodore than Alice herself. 1E also applies as her relationship with him is essentially the only thing she's noted for to begin with. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per the results of the first AFD discussion, especially if its true that there are seven paragraphs about her at the American National Biography. Regardless of the context or her actual role, or lack there of, in history, sources cover her in significant detail, and there's enough content to warrant a short article at least. Sergecross73   msg me  16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Standards might have been different in 2008, but today she fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Excluding any WP:BLP violations or WP:NOT concerns (which there are none here), the WP:GNG is the ultimate thing it needs to meet. All of our WP:NALBUMS and our WP:BIOs are all helpful in indicating whether or not they meet the GNG, but the GNG is the ultimate standard. It meets that. Sergecross73   msg me  13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GNG isn't an automatic keep; it's simply the bare minimum requirements for any article. There are specific sets of notabikity criteria like WP:NMUSIC for music-related articles, WP:NFILM for movie-related articles, and WP:BIO for biographical articles. The specific criteria exists for a reason, and therefore should be applied as opposed to simply general criteria. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what else to say other than "No, your current understanding is incorrect". I mean, there's a reason why virtually all of these other standards have a paraphrased version of the WP:GNG as one of the clauses that satisfies the respective standard. WP:NALBUMS point #1, WP:NBAND point #1, WP:BASIC, which is the opening section for "Notabilty (people)", etc etc. Its because the GNG is the standard every subject must adhere to ultimately. (Again, outside things like WP:NOT or WP:BLP issues, which again, are not a factor in this one.) Sergecross73   msg me  02:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The other sets of notability criteria mentioned (such as WP:ANYBIO) have additional requirements, though; one can't simply overlook or dismiss those. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 02:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 paragraphs above ANYBIO, the paragraph describing the various subsections of "Notability (people)", clearly states that failure to meet these other criteria (ANYBIO is part of this) is not conclusive proof for dismissing a subjects notability. (Because, you know, that's what the GNG is. Note the statement is not placed before BASIC. ) Sergecross73   msg me  03:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point is that notability requirements for certain articles like biographies are more nuanced than simply "must covered by reliable sources". BIOFAMILY (which applies here) states that people do not warrant articles for only being family members of notable people. Given how she's not noted for anything other than her relationship with TR, she isn't notable enough for her own article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - because she is a part of American History as the wife of a former president, and because of that there is a public interest / need for information about her. Just because she died early doesn't make her not notable. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except she was never the wife of a former president. She was the wife of a NY State Assemblyman.  How many articles are there for the non-notable wives of state assemblymen?  The wives of state assemblymen who did nothing notable other than marrying a man from a wealthy family?  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  21:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable enough for American National Biography notable for us. Most members of immediate families of US presidents easily pass GNG due to wide range of academic biographical publications of history and genealogy on them. That essay should have no place on super historical people, only modern celebrities like Heidi Montag or something. The argument about the sources mentioning Theodore when they mention her mean very little, imagine if someone on the level of Aristotle had a son and they won 1000 grammys or academy awards, the fact that he is Aristotle's son would be the primary thing brought up, such things happen with atrociously notable people, we can't avoid that and it shouldn't be a dis-qualifier. Atrociously notable people bring in so much coverage that it rubs off on immediate relatives, that's how it goes. GuzzyG (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Being listed in a certain book is not an automatic indicator of notability. Also, per WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (people), being related to someone famous DOES NOT BY ITSELF make one notable. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it extremely funny if being in the national biography dictionary did not match our encyclopaedic mission. you completely missed the point on the family thing, the sources are there for her and considering the time frame of course they are going to mention her "more accomplished" husband, that's just how it went then. A non-notable relative is someone who has no sources but is the sister of someone with a page, someone who has multiple sources, half a book writen about her and in a national biography dictionary of arguably one of the top 5 biggest countries would blow the GNG out of the water... How many sources back then would there have been that have not survived? We can't expect a time magazine and a new york time interview like she is the new pop star or something, so being referenced in historical biographies are our go to. GuzzyG (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Raw number of sources that mention her notwithstanding, she has no independent notability because she's only noted for being TR's first wife (which isn't enough on its own for a separate article). Notability is not inherited; she must be noted for something on her own without family affiliations to meet the notability criteria for biographies. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Well sourced article. We don't judge notability according to our opinion of a person's life.  We judge notability according to the sources. Generations of mainstream historians, journalists, writers and curators have studied and written about this woman.  Our job is to acknowledge that teh multiple, reliable sources covering her life make her qualify under WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with opinion on her life or reliability of sources used; the main issue is she isn't noted for anything other than being Theodore Roosevelt's first wife. Notability is not inherited through relationships, and WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the context, reliable sources and historians have covered her in detail, providing significant coverage. Her marriage may have sparked the initial interest, sure, but the article isn't just one sentence saying she married Teddie, sources have dug deeper to provide further information on her. As someone alluded to above, I think BIOFAMILY is more to keep us from having these ridiculous spin-out articles, like the siblings or offspring of Flavor Flav or something, of which has no coverage, no encyclopedic content, and don't inherit his notability. This is different. This person has been discussed in massive, national encyclopedias. Sergecross73   msg me  14:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right...her hair length, the color of her eyes, her beauty, her height, and her nickname are all quite well covered -- which certainly makes her short life encyclopedia material. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, the American National Biography wrote about that, and stretched that out to 7 paragraphs, eh? That's either impressive on their part, or a gross oversimplification on yours. Sergecross73   msg me  14:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tell you what : since you have access to this incredible encyclopedic biography of AHLR, how about you recreate those pages here for us to purview (or provide a link, if there is one), and we will decide for ourselves if it's 7 paragraphs of encyclopedic content, okay? -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lets be realistic - we're talking about an award winning, nationally published encyclopedia published by a major university and the American Council of Learned Societies. What do you think those paragraphs are going to be about? Her measurements and her likes and dislikes? Get real. No, I don't plan on shelling out money or taking a separate trip to a Library to research something that's on the verge of a WP:SNOW keep anyways... Sergecross73   msg me  15:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is how just about every reliable source mentioning her at all really focuses on her relationship with TR her death. Also, WP:BIOFAMILY applies to spouses as it does siblings or children. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment wasn't intended to express the idea that it mattered were it about spouses or siblings, I was merely providing what I felt was probably more of the type of thing the guideline is trying to prevent. Anyways, it doesn't really matter, as I stated above, direct quote from WP:BIO is People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. (That's the GNG.) WP:BIOFAMILY and like everything you've listed are all the criteria they're referring to here. It's literally backing up my stance of "Yeah, these criteria may help you figure out if they're notable, but the GNG is still the actual final word. Sergecross73   msg me  16:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, GNG isn't the "final word" when BIOFAMILY says that one must be noted for something other than family affiliations in order to be notable. The requirements of BIO provide nuance than simply "is significantly covered in reliable sources". <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The part I bolded in the last comment directly and literally shows that passing BIOFAMILY is not a requirement. Sergecross73   msg me  16:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's still discouraged to make articles on people only known for being related to famous people, though. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 18:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep That the srticle survived one nomination and has improved itself with secondary sources only reinforces that the first decision to keep was the correct one. The objections on Teddy's talk page center on Notability is not inherited, yet the wikipage on the subject refers to the case of notability for his cousin's wife:


 * "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady or membership of a Royal house. For instance, being married to the Governor of Arkansas does not make the spouse notable, whereas being married to the President of the United States typically does."

Therefore, Alice is notable, she was married to POTUS, and further significance has been borne out by secondary sources, including Ken Burns' documentary on the Roosevelts that has come out since the first nomination. There are books about the wives of Teddy Roosevelt, which by its scope is not about the president. What NOTABILITY IS NOT INHERITED actually means is that Alice's relatives don't get to have their own article, because even if they are mentioned in TR's or ALR's bios and secondary sources, there is little notability that can be drawn about them from secondary sources. But Alice does, because she was the wife of an important man and affected the life of that man in a notable way, moreso than any wife of Henry VIII. MMetro (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This doesn't meet WP:Speedy keep criteria, and it's not like all the votes are "keep". Additionally, WP:Notability (people) says that being married to someone famous (even POTUS) is by itself not an indicator of notability. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to Alice as much as it does her relatives. She also is essentially a case of WP:BIO1E; the only defining thing about her is the TR relationship. One person affecting another's life is also not necessarily an indicator of notability. She would have to be noted for something outside of family affiliations to meet notability criteria for biographies. As for the Ken Burns documentary, it's not like that is exclusively focused on her. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep She appears in sufficient sources. I'm sure she would be even more notable if she hadn't died in childbirth at age 24, but she was significant in the only role a woman would be allowed at that time. LaMona (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily the only role a woman could have at the time, though the sheer number of sources existing doesn't by itself establish notability per WP:MASK when she fails WP:BIO. Also, she died at 22. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What?. Now we !vote keep because...FEMINISM. Holy fucking cannoli.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, calm down, pretty sure that's not what is being said there. I think the editor was just saying that women had less of a role in things back then. (Politics, history, etc.) I agree that that's largely irrelevant to whether or not the article should be kept, but the editor also made the claim that there are sufficient sources, which is relevant, so it's fine. Sergecross73   msg me  12:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand that simply being related to a notable person is not itself sufficient justification for a Wikipedia article. But if, in real life, that relationship generates enough interest for the person to be written about in sufficient depth in reliable sources, then that generates their own notability due to public interest. And there do seem to be plenty of good sources writing about her in some depth. Mr Potto (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.