Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Ryerson


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 20:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Emily Ryerson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable Titanic passenger. No significant coverage outside of this single event. –dlthewave ☎ 22:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WCM email 22:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and perhaps create a joint article with husband Arthur Larned Ryerson, the Ryerson (company), in their day known as Ryerson Steel. Article just need s sourcing. Our dysfunctional PRESENTISM leaves us with many articles like this one and Ryerson (company), we have a  coverage deficit on  historic manufacturing  companies and on the families who owned America in the Gilded Age.   It is highly improbable that any of the millionaires on the Titanic lack sufficient sources to support notability; what we lack are editors working on history articles.    Moreover, having articles on Titanic survivors is user friendly.  These articles get large numbered of page views, our readers want this sort of info to be here .  they just do.  They share this interest with the media, which runs stories on the Ryersons like this one Cooperstown has connection to the sinking of the Titanic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, given the wealth, she continued to get press coverage for things like building a grand mansion, and having a dramatic wedding and second marriage. A very modest WP:HEY expanding article. Like many survivors, she got coverage for the rest of her life, much of it mentions that she was a a survivor.  My argument is that when there is a lot of coverage it makes you notable, especially when some of it is related to an event with the kind of enduring public fascination that the Titanic still has.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sourcing that is available, if not in article, including the sourcing in books like Don Lynch's Titanic: An Illustrated History, her role discussed in this: ] review of the book in the New York Times, carries her past WP:SIGCOV. As the New York Times said in 1997, Yikes! That Famous Old Boat Is Sinking Yet Again.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak-Keep (Comments) As an article just barely scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion. I am with I really don't know why Dlthewave wants to remove all these historic persons of interest and not only that, some persons of interest have already been deleted it seems without regards for a correct redirect. This is just turning into systematic destruction surrounding articles about POIs in regards to the Titanic, Govvy (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep She apparently was an "honored benefactress" of the American Memorial Hospital at Rheims, famous for her "social eccentrities" and took part in the legal process after the Titanic sank, so I do not think it's fair to say that it is just a single event. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2018 (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.