Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Lee Bouvier


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Janet Lee Bouvier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject doesn't appear to be independently notable enough to meet WP:BIO requirements. Most if not all credible works discussing her largely pertain to daughter Jackie, and family affiliations alone simply aren't enough to warrant a standalone article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. We concern ourselves with whether someone is notable rather than why they are and having their obituary in the NYT suggests to me they are notable. A book about her and her daughter adds to this. I'm not clear that it is any more appropriate to argue that she is only notable because of her daughter than to argue that, without her, her daughter would not have been born. I can't help but think that in covering royal families such as the Kennedys the mother-in-law is worth an article if there is verifiable material (which in this case there is). Thincat (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Having an obituary does not on its own make one notable. Neither does being connected to the Kennedy's or any other family. WP:BIOFAMILY states being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. The problem with trying to use that bio to justify keeping this article is that much of it is about her daughter and not Janet herself, and even if it did, being her mother isn't some automatic free pass for notability. She needs to be noted for her own merits rather than her family's. From what I've seen, she isn't independently noted for anything meaningful of her own merit (failing WP:ANYBIO) that doesn't have to do with family connections. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course having an obituary doesn't make someone notable. However, if you have an obituary perhaps it is because you are notable. The subject clearly meets our standards for the topic to be "presumed to merit an article" on account of coverage. But you seemed to be suggesting that, despite this, the subject should not be considered notable because the coverage is not really about her or would not have been written except for who her daughter was. And I disagree. I think you are not taking sufficient account of her own life and what she did. That is my opinion and it is different from yours. Would we have an article about Jackie if she hadn't married Jack, or Aristotle? Would we have an article about a book editor? We need to take account primarily of whether there is adequate coverage and, if there is, taking things overall, is this person reasonably important so that it is fitting for there to be coverage in an encyclopedia. We should not be inserting our opinions on whether the person "deserves" to be considered important. Thincat (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that she doesn't meet WP:Notability (people), the basic criteria used for determining whether biographies warrant articles. It exists for very good reason and should be put to use. I don't deny for a moment that there are sources talking about her, but they aren't really enough to show notability in this case. People don't warrant articles solely based on their connections to other people. Notability is not by any means inherited. Jackie on the other hand is someone who is noted for her merits outside of family connections. Snuggums (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia articles are not rewards for some kind of perceived "merit".  They are a means for organizing encyclopedic content in a way that makes them best accessible to users.  Janet's biography is certainly encyclopedic information, organized clearly and succinctly, and notable in the Wikipedia sense given the book and assorted news items about her.  Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis is already over 105K and I see no good reason to force a reader who is looking for information about Janet to dig through Jackie's article.  As so often happens in these discussions, inherited notability is invoked but misses the point: Janet is not notable because she is Jackie's mother, she is notable because there is amply significant coverage about her in multiple published reliable and independent secondary sources, and she accordingly passes WP:BASIC.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Jackie's article size is irrelevant. Also, WP:What Wikipedia is not states even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be, so being mentioned in sources doesn't necessarily mean something is worth a page. Again, no denial that there are credible works discussing her at all, but "presumed notable" doesn't automatically equate to "is notable". The fact that most if not all of the good sources that do mention her are largely about her daughter is also a red flag. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 15:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 09:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't seem to be enough to substantiate an article here, independant of Jackie O. It would come down to her being a famous socialite, and there is little here to substantiate that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Although her contributions are not notable in themselves, certain online references and the article's sources indicate that this page could be a useful addition to Wikipedia. Star Islington (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. The contributions themselves would actually have to be noteworthy to truly warrant an article, which is far from the case here. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. To cite WP:NOTINHERITED, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". Is she known solely for her connection to her daughter Jackie? Yes, but it does not matter. She generated enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, even if that coverage was not due to something substantial that she contributed to the world. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It actually DOES matter per WP:BIOFAMILY, which states that being related to someone famous is not in itself enough to establish notability. Even if she did have enough independent meet GNG, which I seriously doubt since most if not all good works even mentioning her is largely about Jackie, she isn't independently noted for anything meaningful of her own merits. Also, the point of WP:NOTINHERITED is that you CAN'T make good arguments for keeping by saying they're related to someone famous. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 16:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, all it says is that the relation is not in itself enough to establish notability. But that no one is arguing that it should. However, if she gets sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG, then she is notable in her own right, even if her main claim to fame is having a famous daughter. No longer a penguin (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't really enough quality material for even that since there are very few (if any) good works available that go into much on her without lots of focus on Jackie. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 21:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why does it have to be "without lots of focus on Jackie"? Nowhere in the WP:GNG does it say that the coverage has to be exclusive, only that it's significant. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Independent coverage is needed so a subject can more clearly be assessed for quality and quantity of material. The bulk of good works that mention Janet at all are really more about Jackie, whether it's biographies or news reports on her daughter. Any coverage available outside of those is far from significant except maybe her obituary. One good source alone simply isn't enough to warrant an article regardless of claim to notability. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 13:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep She passes GNG on her own. Please notice, too, that she had a role in the White House, as standing in for Mrs. Kennedy as the hostess. If you look her up on Newspapers.com, there are a ton of hits about her--especially in regards to horsemanship and as a socialite. A lot of the hits are for premium subscribers, however. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Search engine test, the sheer number of results from searches isn't an automatic indicator of notability. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: perhaps rather than simply arguing that she does/doesn't meet the GNG, people could mention which sources they believe show that she meets the GNG? Just looking at the article, the obvious one is Janet and Jackie:  The Story of a Mother and Her Daughter, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.  As far as I can see, nothing else cited in the article helps establish that the article meets the GNG: there are two wedding notices, two obituaries (all routine and run-of-the-mill), some articles about people related to her who aren't Jackie O; a biography of Jackie O, and Where the Bodies Are: Final Visits to the Rich, Famous, and Interesting.  I don't have access to all of these, and so haven't actually checked them, but I would be surprised to find that they help establish Bouvier's notability.  On the other hand, there may well be other stuff out there, and if anyone can show that there is more than what is given in the article, then the case for notability could be made stronger. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:01, 16 June 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.