Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Vanderbilt Sloane


 * 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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience  t 01:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Emily Vanderbilt Sloane

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not inherited from Vanderbilt connection, she was a philanthropist, but I'm not seeing her as notable outside of membership in notable groups, and coming from a notable family. Propose delete or merge with Vanderbilt family super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat  23:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  01:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability is not inherited. sst  ✈  01:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep of course The references determine her notability, not her status as a philanthropist or a socialite. Think reality TV stars or YouTube stars, if she was a contemporary person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep primarily because of the NYT sources currently in the article. Yes, notability is not inherited, which invalidates a "keep, she's a member of the vanderbilt family" argument; but nobody is saying that here. Perhaps the media only care about her because of her family heritage, but I don't believe we are in the business of second-guessing coverage in reliable sources, which she has. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of the major events of her life were the subject of articles in the NYT.Popeye191 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, apparently a major figure in NYC social life in the past, certainly more interesting than random descendants of deposed monarchs. —Kusma (t·c) 10:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based upon existing non-trivial coverage of the subject from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge with Vanderbilt family. Yes, there are a ton of book sources, but if you look closely, it seems every single one refers to "her mother / daughter / sister-in law" rather than her as an actual subject. I'm probably disparaging her by thinking of her as an archetypical lady who lunches, but she doesn't appear to have directly done anything much. The only other thing I can recommend is to tell about the infobox picture, so it can be added to their collection. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  13:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in her own right.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in her own right -- philanthropist, community organizer, published author. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Not exactly sure what this means "she was a philanthropist, but..." GNG does not require her to have done anything, nor had an occupation, though she actually did contribute to society. Disparaging reference to her donations do not diminish that she made them nor that the press thought they were significant enough to mention them. She was a preservationist, supported education and founded a PTA, was a writer and was involved in social betterment programs at a time when governments did not have social programs. WP guidelines require 3 criteria, mentioned over time, in reliable sources, with significant coverage. Significant coverage = depth, not length. Clearly she passes all 3, as she is still being written about and there are a plethora of RS about her and her works. SusunW (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Okay, I've had a thorough look round and mined the sources available in the article and what I could get from a book search, and there's now some content in the article that is specifically about her as a person, so I'm happy to say it passes muster for inclusion. In general, I think we talk a lot about notability, reliable sources, GNG etc .... but what it really should be boil down to is a simple question : "Could anyone write a good article about this subject?" (please note that a "good article" is not a "good article") PS: I do confess that the appearance of Susun and Rosie has reminded me I should do some work for Women in Red before the month is over..... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable in her own right. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (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.