Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Terhune Herrick


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn from the multiple notes on my talk page made within minutes of my prod/AfD of this article, the rapid fire "keeps", the unnecessary personal attack, etc, it seems clear this AfD can not possibly run in a proper fashion due to the automatic bad faith presumption that anyone daring to nominate an article created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for deletion must somehow want to contribute to whatever personal issues he is having with other editors at the moment. Will at least attempt to be have better faith than those who ran to his defense and hope that the current activity on the article will continue past this withdrawal so that the article is improved to the point that actual notability is shown rather than just adding sources confirming her dates of birth, date, and releases of her books. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Christine Terhune Herrick

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable author. Fails WP:N and WP:AUTHOR. While it is clear that her mother and her one surviving brother are notable, Christine seems to have been fairly unnotable and has not received the significant coverage of her other family members. She does not have independent, significant coverage, primarily just mentions in relation to her family members. Prod removed by article creator, who created and abandoned the article in May 2007, not returning until it was prodded) with claim that having a NY Times obit makes her notable. Same creator also twice removed a notability tag. Two obituaries alone do not make a person notable, particularly when the obits cited appear to be similarly worded and likely are from a singular source (most likely Terhune family). Reprints/rewrites of those obits, if any, also do not make her notable. A single review of one of her books is also not significant coverage of the author herself (added by creator after removing the prod). While Mrs. Herrick's mother and brother are clearly notable subjects, she herself does not appear to be so and the notability of her family and one or two of her works. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Oddly enough Wikipedia states that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Two obits satisfies that rule, and it is just silly speculation and original research to say that the New York Times and Chicago Tribune are "similarly worded and likely are from a singular source (most likely Terhune family)". I imagine that all books on Abraham Lincoln have the same information too. That is the nature of biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Obits alone do not make her notable, particularly if said obits are simply press releases from the family (they have nearly identical wording, at least from your citations), and just two is not "significant coverage". Random short reviews of one or two of her works is also not significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction The NYT times review of her book was added by me. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But I deserve some loathing too, I added a second one, there are four more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is loathing anyone. Kindly refrain from remarks that may indicate a presumption of bad faith. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep See her profile in Notable American women, 1607-1950: a biographical dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 188-189 (available at G-Books) - notable and verifiable, an interesting and important part of US history. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That, at least, is not an obit and is actual coverage of the person, versus the reviews of her novels. However, its preface indicates that it relied heavily on Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, which is not a reliable source itself (no idea on the rules when one source uses a unreliable source). It is also still just a single point of actual significant coverage, that is independent of the subject. However, it is also still a WP:Tertiary source. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per above. A stupid and time-wasting nomination. Dekkappai (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2010 (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.