Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Madoff


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Madoff

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOTE Person is only notable because they were a relative of someone notable. News coverage consists only of brief references in articles about Bernard Madoff. A bit of a hit job, too. John Nagle (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's move it where it belongs: as background inspiration and influence for his son, Bernie Madoff. It is not a hit job, simpy too many chiefs deleting it where is was originally placed, so a new page was started to avoid conflict...Furtive admirer (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete of merge Article is about the father of a notable person, but has no evidence of notability himself. His only claim to notability (from the current article) is that he had a minor scuffle with the SEC. Notability isn't inherited. If any of the verifiable content is useful, it can be merged into the Bernie Madoff article and redirected. -Atmoz (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep (created article) The CNN/Money story is entirely about the subjects, and there is more than enough other coverage to make the father notable. The article could perhaps be about both parents? And some of the content should of course be included in the son's article as appropriate, but putting it all there would be too much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability is not inherited, even in reverse. Frank  |  talk  21:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but where there is substantial coverage it doesn't need to be inherited. See for example Madelyn Dunham, Maya Soetoro-Ng, and Lolo Soetoro.  That they have become notable in large part because of their relation to a more notable figure, does not mean they are not themselves notable once they've been covered substantially in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but I don't think it applies. Keep in mind that Bernie didn't even have an article before his arrest. Barack Obama certainly did. Even his relatives are of questionable notability. That Bernie had parents is hardly notable. Frank  |  talk  01:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * May not be notable to you. But CNN/Money did a whole article on them, and they've received other coverage so I think notability is sufficient and consistent with guidelines. If people don't want to read about them, they don't have to. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the article you refer to? It hardly qualifies as "a whole article on them" - rather a bunch of speculation and innuendo directly related to Bernie. If there's another that qualifies as being about them, it should be added as a reference to our article. I'm just not seeing independent notability in this case; if they weren't notable before Bernie was (and he probably wasn't until December 2008), it's going to be hard for them to become notable now, ~30 years after they died. Frank  |  talk  11:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people become notable after they die as their significance becomes clear. That article is about the parents and is substantial coverage. That it "relates" to Bernie indirectly irrelevant. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Procedural Keep and relist on AfD The article cited above is primarily about the mother, not the father. Gigs (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Retitled per your concern to include both parents. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing the subject of an article midway through an AfD is... unusual to say the least. Because of this change, I suggest that this AfD be abandoned and relisted.  Gigs (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a new article and naming and such sometimes takes time to be worked out. I was leaning toward a combined article anyway, see my earlier comment, and I think it works better this way. There is enough coverage of the parents to make them notable and worth including for those who want to know the family background. There is too much to information to include all in Madoff's article and there is likely to be more to come as coverage of the circumstances and background continue to be investigated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Frank. I had in mind the exact same rationale, with the exact same wording, when I opened this AfD! Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article has been changed to "Ralph and Sylvia Madoff," but I don't see how these people warrant an article at this time. That may change as more information comes to light, and article can be re-established. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, merge any possibly useful content into biography section of Bernard Madoff. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:24, 29 March 2009 (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.