Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Ward


 * 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   delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Alice Ward

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete (not merge or redirect): This is a vanity page for someone completely non-notable. I realize she just died and I don't mean to sound unsympathetic because I know she had a large family that loved her, but this doesn't change that fact that the entire article consists of her being the mother of boxer Micky Ward, who was played by Mark Wahlberg on film. Her death can be included in her sons' articles. (I originally requested a speedy deletion but rather amazingly this was denied so I am going this route.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: I disagree, as it seems do several other editors who have helped with the article and the one who denied your speedy deletion request. She was a real life person that someone won an Academy Award for portraying, and although brief a article as it is (it may get longer as more people want to add, there IS more information out there, she deserves her own article on Wikipedia, and as of now there is not one mention of her on her sons Wiki page's so there is no where to add her. It's also important as a part of the Academy Award history for people who are looking for information on Oscar Winning Characters. If Leigh Anne Tuohy deserves a page, so does she. (Rharrington 00:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk)
 * Actors get nominated for awards for portraying non-notable characters. In itself, it is not argument for keeping an article about a subject portrayed – a person whose only notability is being mother to two boxer sons. Nor is she the central subject of the film. Bear in mind that WP:NOT, this article seems to be in violation of, as it stands. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, give it time: It was only created roughly 23 hours ago, so there's still time for information to flow in. She is a pretty notable person, considering she was portrayed in an Oscar-winning film. If she was only the inspiration, fine, not that notable, but since she does have a credible background, i feel she meets notability.  Rusted AutoParts  (talk) 22:42 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * She died recently, at the ripe old age of 79. If she was genuinely notable, it is likely she would have had an article long ago, and not upon her death. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rharrington112 - Your logic is seriously flawed. I don't know much about Leigh Anne Tuohy, but the movie was about her (Tuohy's) philanthropy. If you want to AFD the Tuohy page go ahead -- it has nothing to do with this page, aside from Academy Award winning actresses. As far as Alice Ward, with all due respect and with serious curiosity, may I ask how she "meets notability" other than being the mother of Micky Ward and Dickie Ecklund? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't she the manager for them at a time IIRC? Connormah (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think my previous statements are not flawed and are valid. If someone writes an Academy Award winning role that is solely about this person, I would say that is notable enough. The news of her death is on every major news site and people are obviously interested in her and her life. (Rharrington 01:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk)


 * Rharrington112 - Your logic is seriously flawed. No one "deserves" an article, btw. I don't know much about Leigh Anne Tuohy, but the movie was about Tuohy's own philanthropy and actions, not her sister or her husband or her son, etc. If you want to AFD the Tuohy page go ahead -- it has nothing to do with this page, aside from Academy Award winning actresses.
 * You keep saying "I think" or "I would say". Try "I can show because..." Other than being the mother of Micky Ward and Dickie Ecklund, Alice Ward is non-notable. Most people have mothers and fathers; parents do not accrue notability by dint of their children's accomplishments, even if their characters are played on celluloid. In short, she doesn't merit her own article just because Melissa Leo was nominated for an Oscar and happened to win. I haven't seen such a threadbare blatantly sentimental vanity article in quite a while. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Actually people do 'deserve' articles. That's the point of notability and deciding who has it and who doesn't. They did something that warrants public interest and acknowledgment. It's been clearly stated that her son's wouldn't have had a career without her help, she was their manager. I can guarantee you that Leigh Ann Tuoghy wouldn't have her own page (much less be known to the public) if Sandra Bullock wouldn't have won an Oscar for portraying her in a film. Very few performances are nominated for or win an Academy Award that are based directly on real people and considering all that has to take place for that to happen it's quite an honor. I'm sure the article will grow in time, more information will be released when they make funeral plans, and I will try to add to it myself. (Rharrington 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)) Rharrington112 (talk)


 * I suppose it is remotely possible that a valid article can be made about Alice Ward that will show her objective notability. The current article, which contains less information that an average New York Times paid obit, should be deleted, and a new better article created when/if one ever comes into being.
 * No one "deserves" an article, just as no one is entitled to a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame or an Emmy or Tony or Academy Award. Many deserving folks have not gotten the stars or awards I would say they deserve, but life is a witch (with a capital "B") sometimes, ain't it? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:NOTINHERITED -- neither from her sons nor from the actress who happened to win an Oscar playing her (an Oscar confers merit on the performance, not the role). No independent notability is even articulated, let alone established. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Hrafn above. Nymf hideliho! 11:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The coverage of her death has been reported in numerous journals internationally such as The Guardian and so the topic is certainly notable. If there is not much to say about her then we might merge into another article but, as we have at least three related articles - Micky Ward, The Fighter (2010 film) and Melissa Leo, it seems best to keep this short article here as a link between them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RS: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." (my emphasis) As to the argument against merging, there would be no reason why mention of her could not be included in Micky Ward (the most closely related article, e.g. as part of a 'Family' section), with links from The Fighter (2010 film) and Melissa Leo to the appropriate section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 22:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I repeat: this is a vanity page, whether it originated in "Southie" or not. I am sorry she passed away, but if she were notable why was the article only created after her death? It is an insult to everyone's intelligence to pretend otherwise! Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Vanity pages are written by the subject but this person is dead and did not write the article. The claim that this is a vanity page is therefore false.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't be flippant. It is an obvious vanity page, written by someone close to her despite her clear non-notability. An article doesn't have to be written by its subject to be a vanity page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The article was created by an editor who has created other articles related to the cinema and theatre such as Estelle Hemsley and De'Adre Aziza. Your claim of a personal connection seems absurd and you present no evidence.  Accusing an editor of vanity without any evidence is a personal attack contrary to our civility policy. Please apologise and withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obituaries are quite satisfactory for our purpose as we write summaries rather than exhaustively detailed biographies. Such sources are very suitable for establishing notability as they demonstrate a good level of general interest in the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, what point here is in dispute? I am not disputing this but an obituary by itself does not ipso fact confer notability, especially a "paid obit", which is what I made reference to earlier in this colloquy. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guadian article which I cited was not a paid obituary. The interest in this case seems to derive from the connection with the Oscar award not payment or vanity. The resulting obituaries are therefore satisfactory as evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, "an obituary by itself does not ipso fact confer notability", as I said. I am not going to apologize for anything. The editor who created this article may have created other articles, but that doesn't mean this one is valid. He or she exercised very poor judgment in creating what amounts to a vanity page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as cited above by Hrafn: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I will not go so far as to call this a vanity page, but if all the obituaries have is that she was the mother of two famous boxers, WP:NOTINHERITED fits perfectly. She must be notable in and of her own right. Hence why we have Kate Middleton, Pippa Middleton but no James William Middleton; the same applies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In a clear case of WP:BEANS we now do have an article about cake maker James William Middleton Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Created by Colonel Warden, I see. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. Although I see that it has already been nominated for speedy at least once and may end up here within a couple days. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No long term notability, whilst her death is sad there only appears to be fleeting coverage which, with respect, seems to be of the 'and in other news..'/cat stuck up a tree variety. The arguments that she inherits notability from either having been played in a notable film or having reared successful children don't have much grounding as has been noted. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If they are notable enough to be listed in the obituaries of major newspapers, that makes them a notable person.  D r e a m Focus  14:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where do you keep making up these rules? If anything, Wikipedia guidelines say the exact opposite.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't just a passing mention in the obituaries, or a paid announcement, but a full article on someone a major newspaper has decided notable enough to do an article on.   D r e a m Focus  19:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Only claim to notability is her son, if she didn't have the son she wouldn't have had the obituary in a major paper and there would have been no film. Agree that WP:NOTINHERITED fits perfectly. J04n(talk page) 16:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, notability is not inherited and has no long term notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment Are you serious? No long term notability. People 60 years from now will look back and watch The Fighter just to see Melissa Leo's portrayal of her, and they will want to know about the real life person, I know I do after watching movies based on real people, especially Academy Award Winners. )talk) (Rharrington 21:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rharrington112 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not sure you fully understand wikipedias policy on notability. For better or worse, we don't like to keep articles solely because they contain potentially useful trivia. Perhaps in a year or two, some journalist will publish a well researched piece on the life and times of Ms. Ward or some details of interviews between her and Leo will be published and then we'll be able to create an article - heck, if your right about the public interest in real life film characters, this is virtually certain to happen - but at the moment all we have is a few rather short tertiary sources which only really tell us three facts (i.e. that she was the mother of Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund, that she was played by Melissa Leo and that she died in 2011), this doesnt make for 'significant coverage' Bob House 884 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - notability is not inherited. Yaksar (let's chat) 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable per Bob House, and per my comments above. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - being played by someone notable in a film doesn't necessarily make a person notable. In this case, there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of her, outside of the reports of her death, to suggest that she's notable enough to deserve an article. Robofish (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable in my opinion. The news coverage of her death cited is mostly about the movie and who played her, and even then isn't in-depth or significant. Thparkth (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (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.