Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Meselson

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Meselson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It sounds like a commendable personal history, but the only source of the notability is a NYT obituary, which is paid placement, not an indication of independent journalistic notability. ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one obituary is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More obituaries, here and here.--A21sauce (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources from A21 sauce. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two of the obituaries are almost certainly unpaid obituaries that were featured because she was a notable individual. The third is a run of the mill obituary that was probably paid--not saying I object to it; just making a distinction. Hoping to find sources written during her lifetime about her work. I did a quick search for her on Google Books and there were a number of results. Will add what I find to the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, we have always considered that anyone with a NYT full obit is notable, at least for the modern period (1896+), and with possible exceptions for their early 20th century extensive coverage of NY society figures. --they are a much better judge than we are. I do not recall a single exception in 12 years, and if there is, Johnpacklambert , I would like to be reminded of it . But, decisively, there's also the full editorial obit in The Independent, which shows international coverage. If the theory behind WP:GNG means anything at all, we follow the notability decisions of major reliable sources. If the sources are major enough, 1 is enough, las for example 1 article in Brittanica or its equivalent in other languages. DGG ( talk ) 10:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, would you share where it is said that NYT full obituary covers the notability requirements? Or is this just the general assumption of the community? I have not seen this but it would be helpful in my work creating articles and assessing them in Articles for deletion? Thanks. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it is a written rule, but that it is our almost invariable practice. It has been discussed, wirh respect to what newspapers were applicable, and the conclusion was only the NYT and the London Times were sufficiently reliable in all cases--though such obits in other national level papers have often been used as deciding factors, (There probably are also some newspapers in other countries equally reliable, tho I do not recall any discussions, nor do I know myself editorial practices in this respect outside the US/UK.) The way of demonstrating I am in error, is counterexamples. (The potential problem is from obits of people who may be covered for no reason except a vague human interest, or minor exclusively local interest. The same problem can arise from other generally reliable biographical sources including some national encyclopedias that include coverage of random individuals for the sake of presenting a social picture. In a few cases I have argued against inclusion for this reason--my argument was never accepted. ) DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.