Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katharine Mortimer


 * 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 delete. Following Tacyarg's investigation we have a consensus for deletion. Haukur (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Katharine Mortimer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is purely a genealogical entry, which is not what Wikipedia is for; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It is not at all apparent what makes the subject notable, and the lack of coverage in sources does not help. Even the obituary in NYT, the major source for the article, is a paid notice. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  14:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and trout the nominator for an utter failure to meet the basic standards of WP:COMPETENCE. The "obituary in NYT" is not a paid notice, but is a lengthy, staff-written piece by the notable journalist Margalit Fox. (cited as reference 5; a paid death notice is also cited, but its existence is irrelevant to notability.) From that NYT piece: Miss Harriman’s Moscow exploits were widely covered by the American press. “With the possible exception of Eleanor Roosevelt and Deanna Durbin,” The New York Herald Tribune wrote in 1945, “Kathleen Harriman is the best-known American woman in the Soviet Union.” There's really no question of notability here, and no question that the nominator didn't even bother to review the sources cited in the article. Tacyarg appears to be quite right, and I've likely conflated two women with very similar names discussed in the same bio. I apologize to the nom and to every editor who followed me down that road. That said, I would still !vote to keep. There's extensive sourcing, and socialites of the era played a role in popular culture similar to that played by reality tv personalities and YouTube exhibitionists today. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The text is currently heavy on genealogy and light on career information, but the sourcing is enough to establish notability. The full NYT story by Margalit Fox has details not yet included (e.g., she attended the Yalta Conference). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep . Nearly everyone who gets a 1000 word obit in the Times is notable. pburka (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that this woman got a paid notice. According to Forbes's Who Gets A Paid Obituary In The New York Times -- And Why?, "anyone can submit one about anyone who has died" if they "have a lot of money". Having a lot of money is not a notability criterion, is it? Surtsicna (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time I wrote this, there was a 1000 word unpaid obit linked from the article. It now appears that was about a different person with a similar name. pburka (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. I may be confused, but I think there were two related women with similar names, and they have got confused in the article: Katharine Mortimer (died 2003) and her sister-in-law Kathleen Harriman (died 2011), who was Kathleen Mortimer after marriage. The article is about the former's life, except for the statement about her journalism. The NYT obit by Margalit Fox, and this Telegraph obit, are about the latter. If that's the case, I'm not sure that Katharine Mortimer's article should be kept. Kathleen Harriman looks like she might be notable, though I'm not clear from the two obits what her journalism or her political hostessing (?) amounted to. Tacyarg (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I also noticed that one of the references was to a self-published conspiracy-theory book about the Rockefellers, the Kennedys and Watergate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete an obituary you pay to have included does not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although there are a lot of sources included, quite a few are not about the subject of the article, and those that are are WP:ROUTINE, such as her marriage and divorce announcements. Three of the sources relate to the other wives and children of one of the subject's husbands, which is getting a bit far off the point. I take the point Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes about socialites, but unless there is extensive coverage of Katharine Mortimer in the Patterson book (currently ref 11), then I don't see WP:SIGCOV of her. Tacyarg (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per the new info uncovered by Tacyarg suggesting some sources are not even about her. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (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.