Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt

Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View log)

As discussed in her father's Afd, there is no evidence of her passing WP:N as relationship with a notable person does not convey notability. She died young, was not first lady, and I find no evidence of her being notable for any other reason. Travellingcari (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • But I'm sure those sources contain enough information about her to support an independent article. We already have several paragraphs anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 05:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge any usable content into Theodore Roosevelt and Alice Roosevelt Longworth.--Ѕandahl 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. The nominator suggests the only reason that there is an article on her is because there was a relationship with a notable person. She is significant because she made such an impact on a US president and bore him his first child (herself significant). --Oldak Quill 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment no I have no idea why there's an article on her as I can't read the creators' mind. I don't think there should be one because she isn't independently notable. Bearing a famous person's child and marrying him does not convey notability, as others have indicated. I'm not finding evidence she did anything, however if I'm wrong I'd like to see what she's done. Travellingcari (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep.AlexPAdams (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge any usable content into Theodore Roosevelt. Does not satisfy WP:BIO on her own and notability does not automatically flow to relatives of notable persons. Edison (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Theodore Roosevelt. Virtually all the content is about him anyway. Jfire (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. She had a profound effect on T.R. Are we going to delete Laura Bush too? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't nominate LB because she's done notable work on her own standing, she's not solely first lady/governor's wife. AHLR wasn't even that. Travellingcari (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong example. What about Leslie Lynch King, Sr.? He was Afd'd recently, but survived because of his effect on Gerald Ford and nothing else. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I never saw and didn't participate in that AfD. To be totally honest, I wasn't even aware of this article until it was mentioned in her father's AFD (who was entirely NN). It's my belief that she didn't do anything notable to warrant notability on her own standing. We'd never have heard of her if she hadn't married and bore TR's daughter. Others, including you, may disagree. We'll see where this goes. Travellingcari (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, Leslie Lynch King, Sr. survived because there is enough information about him to write an independent article. Zagalejo^^^ 05:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep C'mon, this is information people might actually want to use. Has anyone complained that Wikipedia has too much information on historical figures? Besides, she passes WP:N; she has a profile in the first book listed here, and there's plenty of additional information from Teddy Roosevelt biographies. Zagalejo^^^ 05:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is always significant historical writing about any spouse of a major political figure. DGG (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment oh there's writing in Scholar and mentions in books but I don't know how much of it is independent of her husband/daughter. She died at 22. I don't know that the profile that Zagalejo mentions above or your reference to possible 'significant historical writing' is enough to pass WP:N if none of it talks about what makes her notable other than being the mother to her notable daughter or notable husband. That's where I question notability. Travellingcari (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability on Wikipedia is not the same as importance. A person is considered notable based on the amount and quality of information written about him or her. Yes, no one would've cared about her if not for her husband, but we have a good deal to say about her, so why deprive readers of that information? Zagalejo^^^ 06:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I happen to disagree, I don't think she meets WP:BIO in her own standing, which is the issue that several others mentioned above. If she gets merged, it won't be lost. I think we're deluding ourselves, however, if we (general, not you and I) think that we're depriving the world of information simply by deleting an article here. We'll see where this ends up. I think this is my most active one-day AfD and it has a long way to go :-) Travellingcari (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as a historical figure with no lack of references in existence, even if they haven't been added to this article. That's a reason to clean it up, not delete it. Also, it would appear that a lack of references to her is actually PART of her notability, as Roosevelt deliberately excised mentions of her from his writings. The fact that he didn't speak of her during the time periods when he was covered most extensively by the media is, itself, noteworthy. --Ig8887 (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Obviously notable because of marriage. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment relationship does not confer notability. And contrary to your edit summary I see no consensus to snow, there's a number of merge comments which also have merit. By your comment, her father's AfD shouldn't have passed because he sired her? There's a limit somewhere and while it may not be a finite line, I think it's a huge leap to say that marriage=notability. Travellingcari (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment She was the first wife of the President of the United States, and so has historical significance. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment and she wasn't first lady. I find no evidence that she did anything other than marry/give birth. As others have said above, take what's useful and merge with the respective entries. We'll see what happens but I don't see consensus yet, never mind snow. Travellingcari (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A merge doesn't require deletion tools, so if that's what people want to do, it's perfectly fair to close this debate and hash out the details on an article talk page. If the content is merged, we'd still use Alice Hathaway Lee Roosevelt as a redirect. Of course, I still think we should keep this article as is. As I said, she has her own entry in the American National Biography (Not available for free online, but easy to access from most libraries). That alone should be enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Zagalejo^^^ 21:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More people have voted to keep the article than to merge it, so there is no grounds for a merge at the present time. Snowman (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • comment we have always consistently and without a single exception considered that anyone with a full article in ANB or ODNB is unquestionably notable. The article there serves as one RS, and they always list additional sources. These are highly discriminating sources with established reputations for stringency. A merge would be trying to say that we know better than the rest of the world, rather than going by what the rest of the world thinks. there has sometimes been discussion about whether a person with a part-article of a paragraph or so in the national biographies are notable, and usually that has been accepted also, again on the basis that good reliable sources are always provided. (A mere mention in them isnot necessarily enough however). This also holds for comparable biographical encyclopedias of other countries, if hey can be shown to have similarly critical standards. We've consistently accepted it for Australia, and I think for Canada--though I have my doubts about some of its coverage of early figures. DGG (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a speedy keep is indicated at this juncture. BTW Snowman (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Response you want to close it on that ground, close it. I'm not going to argue endlessly as my original belief stands. I have yet to see any evidence that she was notable other than having married TR. I always believed it was well-established precedent that notability was not inherited. If she hadn't married TR, would she have been in the book? No. In that light, I think she fails to pass WP:BIO on her own. I still think an assertion of snowball is ludicrous as there is dissent on what to do with the content. I think it's a little weak to insist notability solely for who she married just as others have been deemed nn on that point. The article as it stands has relatively no content about AHLR other than TR's alleged (I say because nothing in the article is cited) reaction to meeting her and further unsubstantiated claims about his issues with not mentioning his wife causing a rift with his daughter. Why is there no content about her? Because she didn't *so* anything and that's the crux of my issue with it. But we disagree and I understand that. Travellingcari (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. John254 01:28, 15 February 2008 (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.