Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Steinbrenner


 * 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. bd2412 T 03:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Joan Steinbrenner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:GNG. Article creator in contesting PROD says there is coverage of her during her life. There are mentions of her in passing in articles that focus on her husband. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and coverage of the subject herself is WP:ROUTINE. And with the article creation after her death, WP:NOTMEMORIAL also needs to be considered. Prove me wrong, that there actually is significant coverage of her before her death. I looked and I'm not seeing it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to George Steinbrenner - doesn't appear to be notable enough on her own & any sort of notability she does have is mostly derived from her husband/sons that own/owned the Yankees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WNYY98 (talk • contribs) 20:35, December 16, 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to George Steinbrenner per WP:NOTINHERITED. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  03:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom, not notable in her own right. WCM email 10:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The reasons given for deletion were a) that notability is not inherited. The notability of Steinbrenner is in her philanthropy, which is work she did herself, and therefore isn't inherited. She can also be considered notable for her position of vice-chair of the Yankees, also work she did herself and isn't inherited; b) that WP is not a memorial. There is coverage of her prior to her death, but it was more apparent and more easily accessed after her death. This is common and doesn't indicate non-notability. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is written to deter editors from writing articles about deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances etc. This is not the case here, this is a genuinely notable person whose page was finally written after she died. MurielMary (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment If she was indeed "genuinely notable" on her own, there likely would have been plenty of coverage before her death. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  15:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm finding multiple sources on newspapers.com going back to the 1970s valereee (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Such as? Briefly mentioning her as George's wife doesn't count as "significant coverage". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * working on it, have found at least half a dozen stories in which she's the focus rather than her husband, have added to article valereee (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how content mentioning George's dealings with Howard Spira (whoever he is, as he has no article) and a taped conversation involving her adds notability, nor her commentary about how he "should see a doctor", so it's been removed. Also mentioned in passing in 1990 "Morning After" article. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  20:30, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * reply to sixtynine: your belief that notable people receive online, accessible coverage while alive is completely false. There are plenty of notable achievers all over the world who don't have such coverage e.g. minority ethnicities, women, historical figures who weren't written about during their lives but were "discovered" after their death etc etc. MurielMary (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everything in an article has to add notability. A person's birthdate and birthplace don't show notability, but they're included in every bio article. This is an interesting anecdote about the subject, and it was reported in multiple sources valereee (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I think if newspapers all over the country, including places she never lived, are announcing a death and mentioning the person's origins, professional position and philanthropy, the person was probably notable on their own. valereee (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC. There are multiple reputable and independent sources spanning decades that are about the subject. Several of these sources are now referenced in the article. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, but... MurielMary canvassed this discussion on WIR without apparently disclosing that fact here. Both the subsequent "keep" !votes are WIR members, one hadn't otherwise !voted in an AFD in almost three years (and so almost certainly only noticed this AFD as a result of the canvassing) and the other almost never !votes "delete". Neither editor disclosed how they noticed this AFD, and while the latter likely has a valid, non-canvassing related reasoning, the former really should have disclosed the canvassing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not from any canvassing. If you look at my entire edit history you'll see I took a nearly an over two-year break from Wikipedia which explains why no AfD votes in that period. valereee (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: your second point. I noticed this canvassing AfD because I have a gadget turned on that turns AfD articles pink. I don't do sports, but I did recognize the name Joan Steinbrenner when I saw it listed in bright pink. I'm from Ohio, and we know her here. valereee (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm... holds up, I guess. You still hadn't !voted in any AFDs last month, when you were highly active, but I guess I'll accept that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on the definition of "canvassing" - WiR keeps a record of articles created during its editathons and to keep the records accurate it seemed useful to add the relevant detail to the list; if the article got deleted the WiR organisers would know why it went red on the list after starting off as blue. Look through the WiR lists and you'll find plenty of these kinds of article details e.g. "rescued from PROD" or "from AfC" etc. IMO it's not much different to adding an article to a list of articles for deletion - and I note that an editor added this article to the "People-related" list but not to a "Women-related" or "Women's History-related" list even though the article is tagged to those projects on its talk page. Is there a reason for the selective nature of listing articles in these lists?? MurielMary (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, it is entirely appropriate to notify the talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion of an AfD. Adding the AfD to the article's entry in a list of articles of a WikiProject with an interest in the topic would seem to be legitimate. MurielMary (talk) 10:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As you note, I was highly active. I created from scratch multiple articles last month and took five of them to DYK. I reviewed five DYK nominations as QPQ. So I was pretty busy. And I don't go hunting for AfD to participate in. I'm not sure why this is barely believable, or why you seem to want to assume bad faith, but I can assure you my only "agenda" here is that I'm concerned about Wikipedia's tendency to redirect notable women to their much-more-notable husbands. :) The specific reason I turned this gadget on a couple weeks ago was that it shows redirects in bright green. It also turns AfD bright pink (which is how I ended up at another AfD just yesterday) and may in fact cause me to start attending more of them. But the reason I got here was seeing a name I knew in bright pink; it's not so often that I actually recognize an AfD bio. And the reason I got involved to the point of spending multiple hours yesterday on newspapers.com was that the suggested solution was to redirect her to her much-more-notable husband. One of the articles I created last month was the exact same situation, and I find it sad that having a husband who is MORE notable should mean a woman's life is relegated to a redirect. valereee (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Hijiri's concern is not the notification, but that the notification wasn't disclosed here, and it's a fair point. Full disclosure: I notified 'women-related deletion discussions' yesterday, and while I was trying to figure out the directions for adding that note here without breaking the page (something I do all too frequently due to being terrible at wiki markup), editor Thsmi002 came along behind me with an assist, for which I thanked them on their talk page. valereee (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a little of both: the stated rationale for making the notification (if the article got deleted the WiR organisers would know why it went red on the list after starting off as blue) doesn't make sense since clicking on a red link would immediately show that the page was deleted per an AFD, and most likely link to the AFD (I'm not an admin and so don't know or much care if they are required to so but they seem to do so every time). Additionally, while I love WIR and agree with their (well, our -- I thought I had signed up as a member like a year ago but I guess I forgot to save the edit) motives and the work that they/we do, but it is definitely a non-neutral forum to post notifications of ongoing AFDs. If you (MurielMary) want to add an AFD to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women, you should feel free to, but adding it to WikiProject Deletion sorting/People is not an act of canvassing that would justify what you did do. And I hardly think it's in WIR's best interests to get a reputation as a canvassing forum. Some women, like some men, some books and some companies, simply are not notable, and I have no doubt that a lot of the entries in WIR's editathons (like those of every editathon I've ever participated in) were problematic and should never have been mainspaced. The proper procedures for writing articles apply regardless of the topic or the editathon in question: I am normally happy to create an article on any topic that has a standalone article in the Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten, Encyclopedia Nipponica or the Nihon Rekishi Daijiten, but if Japanese Wikipedia has an article on Minamoto no Kanetoshi's mother and none of those paper encyclopedias do, I gotta wonder why (but I will similarly wonder why Taira no Chikakiyo's four daughters are not given their own standalone articles). Given how many indisputably more notable women from the thousands of years of human history still don't have articles, I don't see the point in fighting with people who are on your side over this one article just because you don't want to be accused of inappropriate canvassing. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not canvassing to post a neutral notification of an AfD discussion to a talk page. To quote WP:CANVASSING: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects", and "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That kind of comment would shock me, if I hadn't recently seen even worse willing ignorance of policy here. It wasn't neutral (in context, it was essentially "I created this article on a marginalized woman to help combat systemic bias, and now the article has been nominated for deletion!"), and it wasn't in a neutral forum.Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply to Hijiri88 - really, you need to refrain from assigning "bad faith" motives to editors' actions. You have accused me of canvassing, you have accused Valeree of coming here as a result of said canvassing, you have analysed his/her past edit history and passed judgement on his/her motives for commenting here, you've argued that my reason for taking an action "doesn't make sense" and now you are accusing me of "willing ignorance of policy". It would be much more helpful to take everyone's actions and comments at face value rather than assuming these nefarious intentions. Editors should not have to justify to you why they do something then have you attack that reason. Editors should not even have to justify what they are doing to you, as you're not a judge and gatekeeper here but a peer. MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple google book hits. An obit running in NYT, Reuters, and Bleacher Report, SI (via AP), etc. is generally a sign of notability. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep the sources are there, which establishes at least GNG. While it's true that a lot of her notability is inherited from her husband, she has a basic level of notability as established by the multiple sources over time, her role as a philanthropist and the coverage given to her death in multiple highly reliable sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom is mistaken in thinking that post-mortem coverage cannot suffice. In this case there is coverage both during lifetime, and in obituaries.  But there it is not required.  What is required is WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still neutral (believe it or not one can oppose canvassing, even vehemently so, and still agree or at least not disagree with the canvasser), but I think you are misinterpreting what wrote as indicating they "[think] that post-mortem coverage cannot suffice". Obviously for someone who has been dead for a long time, both pre- and post-mortem sources can be used to establish notability (example: no one is ever going to nominate my recently-created article on Chikakiyo's fifth daughter, despite the cited source clearly post-dating her death by around 700 years, and we aren't even sure if any sources from before her death even exist), but for someone who just died recently and the post-mortem coverage is only obituaries, having a standalone article on her may border on WP:NOTOBITUARY or even WP:NOTNEWS. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, . That is indeed a misrepresentation of my point. The only significant coverage I see of Joan Steinbrenner is her obituary. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are now many sources referenced, from multiple areas of the country, starting in the 1970s and continuing through the early 2000s, that are about Steinbrenner and only mention her husband in passing. When a person's relative is much more famous than they are, it is quite normal for mentions of the person to also include mentions of the more-famous relative; those passing mentions don't make the less-famous person not-notable. valereee (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You have added a lot of sources, but many still seem to be about her husband and mention her in passing. I can't read them all as I don't have a newspapers.com account. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know. It's unfortunate. If you'll look at my edit history, I think you'll find that I have generally acted in good faith and assessed notability reasonably when citing sources that are freely available. I'm afraid I'll just have to hope you'll assume that means I do the same when citing sources that are behind paywalls, too. Maybe someone else with access to newspapers.com will be along to check my work. :D valereee (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Newspaper.com articles are readable by clicking on a link, but it's one big paragraph consisting of everything on the selected page of the publication. It's a challenge finding the needed content but is not unreadable. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  02:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I went through and clipped the articles from Newspapers.com. They should now be easier to access. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources are there to meet WP:GNG Fubar100 (talk) 14:18, 23 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.