Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Beckwith


 * 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) GSS (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mary Lincoln Beckwith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

You can't WP:INHERIT notability from a (great) great-grandfather, honest. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, you can; inherit notability from your great-grandfather. As per WP:INHERIT, read on (below).E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete A single mention in the New Yorker about being a descendant isn't enough for notability. The article about Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith probably ought to be deleted, too. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 12:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:INHERIT. Let's not be ridiculous great great grandchildren of a notable person are not notable (unless in their own right) AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait. !vote at conclusion of this thought-process edit.  I looked at the page, then at the page history, and I'm trying to figure out why a wikipedia page on a "nobody" gets hundreds of hits every day. So, the answer seems to be that a lot of people care about Lincoln's descendants - and about the fact that there are none.  In addition to that New Yorker article, Here is a 1994 article in the Chicago Tribune .  And one form the Los Angeles Times  about the deaths of Beckwith and her siblings - non of whom had offspring, leaving Abe and Mary without descendants.
 * Next, I ran a Proquest news archives search. This usual standard is that an obit in a major daily signifies notability, multiple obits and it's a slam dunk. Our Mary got obits in multiple, major, big-city dailies when she died. Her son, Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, got obits nationwide when he died without issue.  The Philadelphia Inquirer obit was brief, and actually stated "Charles Bristow of the Bristow-Faulkner Funeral Home said he knew little about Mr. Beckwith, except that he was descended from the Civil War president.  Records showed he had been married three times but was childless." that is what people cared about.  He got obits nationwide, and also in the Montreal Gazette and other Canadian papers.  Years earlier, when his sister, Doris Beckwith got married, it was national news.  All the descendants were news, but especially towards the end, whenever one died without descendants.  Americans care that Lincoln, like Washington, has no living descendants.  Dunno why; we just care. And so there are news media, books, reliable institutional websites that cover this woman with copious sourcing to pass WP:GNG.
 * We do know some things about her, she "excelled at golf and smoked fine cigars, told a newspaper reporter she thought the federal government was pushing integration too aggressively." That story ran in 1963 in the Indianapolis Star ], and it was snarky. But the thing is, in 1963 newspapers nationwide carried stories about her set-to (presumably on twitter, maybe Facebook) with Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General in the the Kennedy administration over racial integration (the Kennedy boys liked it, she didn't). Unlike the snark from the Philadelphia paper, the ones I clicked on were straight stories about her opposition to integration.  But the point here is that an elderly lady in New England had the ear of the nation because her maiden name was Lincoln.
 * I could go on, but the point is that at a certain point, coverage is so massive, so extensive, sustained for so many decades that it passes WP:GNG. As for the idea that WP:INHERIT states otherwise, it does, except when it doesn't,  as per WP:INHERIT: "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."  A clause that reads as though it was written to fit this case.   Strong Keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of new points made in the discussion. North America1000 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's excellent sleuthing. I agree the subject passes GNG. Here are some other sources from RS over time: Full article from 1963 about her, paragraph about her and her family 1960, paragraph about her and her hobbies 1954, Full article about her 1962, she was an aviator in the 1930s, Obituary 1975, Full article on her 1918, Short article about her 1918, article about her piloting 1930. These are just a few clippings and sources. She seems like an interesting lady! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I added more sources and the ones I found to the actual article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is profusely sourced with pre-1976 sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of the sources, there is no claim to notability beyond being related to a notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that keeping is in accord with WP:INHERIT provision for individuals whose fame derives solely from a close personal connection to a notable individual when, as here, coverage is extensive, deep, etc. WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible KEEP: We have a serious problem that this article is even nominated.  The descendants of Lincoln, now all passed on, are of immense interest to historians-- both who and why.  E.M.Gregory does a good job of outlining the basic policy and guidelines involved, but I have to note that the very nomination smacks of "recentism" and historical ignorance of the highest degree.  I find it unbelievable that someone could be so profoundly ignorant to nominate this article at all ... SMH...  Montanabw (talk)  23:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I think Montanabw and E.M.Gregory have made their case. As a frequent editor of Lincoln related articles I have learned something new and find it interesting. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly satisfies WP:GNG, which merely requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphases and links in original), not any remarkable accomplishments on the part of the subject. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep For those who love books...(and all on Mary).     Lourdes  01:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with the arguments above that WP:GNG is satisfied. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly meets GNG requirements of significant coverage, over time, in reliable independent sources. GNG does not require that anyone have extraordinary accomplishments, and as E.M. Gregory, Megalibrarygirl and others have pointed out, coverage is extensive and continues for decades. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)