Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Ruth

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. - Philippe 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy Ruth

Dorothy Ruth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Babe Ruth's daughter, fails WP:BIO. Delete -- Y not be working? 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative nomination: mention the book at Babe Ruth and redirect -- Y not be working? 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Keep I have to weigh in against the proposed deletion because I think that Dorothy Ruth is notable as being the daughter of famous major league baseball player Babe Ruth, and for being the author of the book "My dad, the Babe". This article is also notable in that in clears up a very common misconception about Dorothy being the actual biological daughter of Babe Ruth, instead of being an adopted child. Sf46 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so it's not the place to "prove" any biological relations. Anyway, her notability can't automatically come from being Babe Ruth's daughter. PeterSymonds | talk 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Changed to weak keep after some thought. Some of the sources are reliable but my main concern is her notability for an article in her own right. Some people, like Jenna Bush, Mary Soames (nee Churchill) made a notable authorship/public career for themselves which originated from their parent's fame, but Dorothy Ruth doesn't seem to fall into that cateegory. PeterSymonds | talk 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Babe Ruth. Not notable enough for an article of her own. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Close relatives of major historical figures are of legitimate interest to researchers. There's enough information available about her [1] to write least a couple of good, sourced paragraphs. A merge to Babe Ruth would be clumsy. Zagalejo^^^ 17:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Author of notable book. --Eastmain (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - only would be notable because the book is about her famous father and I don't even consider the book notable. We're not talking about Stephen King here. --Endless Dan 19:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I don't consider the book notable seems to me to be well within WP:IDONTLIKEIT. McJeff (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is more than enough published information available in the various Babe Ruth biographies and elsewhere to support a Wikipedia article[2]. BRMo (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

*Delete What has she done to make her notable? The article just says "she was born, she got married, she had kids, she wrote a book about her dad, she died"... I don't think just being the daughter of Ruth makes her notable and the book is a minor work at best. If someone can fix the article to make HER more important than I could change my vote but right now it just seems like she didn't do very much. Spanneraol (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) You guys convinced me, changing to keep. Spanneraol (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Worldcat says the book is in at least 200 libraries in the United States. That probably makes it notable. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals, which includes the criterion "... had works in many significant libraries." --Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply "works" would imply more than one book..I'm still leaning towards delete but just barely. Spanneraol (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, no, doesn't work for me. They bought the book because she's Babe's daughter. The book is about Babe, she is irrelevant. Being shelved is an indicium of notability, but if we don't have anything meaningful/interesting/verifiable to say about her other than her birth and her association is a quasi-popular book, we shouldn't have a standalone bio. -- Y not be working? 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Dorothy Ruth was in the news from the 1920s to the 1980s. The mysteries behind her birth seem to have been a big deal when Babe Ruth was playing. There's plenty of information available about her. Zagalejo^^^ 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • There are 123,291 libraries in the US. 200 out of 123,291 libraries doesn't seem like much. --Endless Dan 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sf46 and Zagalejo. McJeff (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Of COURSE being the son or daughter (adopted or otherwise) of a famous person may grant notability by itself. It doesn't automatically do so, but given a sufficiently famous person it does. Jenna Bush, for example, has her own wikipedia page. This is of course not to mention her authorship.24.160.240.212 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Babe Ruth. A brief sentence or two explaining the relationship and mentioning the book is sufficient. As she was the object of some attention, she is a plausible search term. --Dhartung | Talk 07:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per enough reliable sources. Here's a head start.
    • "DOROTHY RUTH HAS $34,224; Estate of Ball Player's Adopted Daughter Disclosed in Court." New York Times, June 30th, 1935
    • "RUTH'S HOMER NOT LUCK.; Some Fans Believe His Little Girl Inspired Mighty Clout." New York Times, Ocotober 8, 1927
    • "Legal Battle Over Ruth's Estate Threatened by Adopted Daughter" The Sporting News, December 15th, 1948, Page 2

SashaNein (talk) 19:53, 17 April 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.