Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maeve Kennedy McKean

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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maeve Kennedy McKean

[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)

Bringing this here because I expect it to be complex and I'm not sure whether a merger or a move is the right outcome, and given the subject matter it's too complex for a talk page.

Townsend/McKean's death was in the news because she was a Kennedy who died young/tragically. While there is sourcing for items that pre-dated her death, none of those positions convey notability, nor did her CUNY role nor her son's role as the first great grandchild of RFK & Ethel. Most of the coverage of her work came to light not because of her work while alive but in light of her death. I don't believe her death was notable as it was ruled an accidental drowning. A merge to her mother is possible as this article could be trimmed without losing much.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions. Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, and Maryland. Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no need for hair-splitting about notability criteria here (which have historically been unevenly applied on WP anyway). This is a well-sourced biographical article that improves Wikipedia rather than detracts from it. rspεεr (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is well sourced and details her work, not just her death or status as a Kennedy. She was not just "A Kennedy who died young" (40 isn't necessarily young). She was a public health official and a member of the Obama Administration. Her death amplified more of this coverage, which in turn built more credible sources to establish notability. It doesn't matter when or how coverage of her work came to be. Many sources on historic figures were written well after a subject's death. Some people were lost to history, yet once written about, they become notable. You may not "believe her death was notable" but it was covered in international and national news sources for weeks. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:GNG, positions don't convey notability as OP seems to imply; reliable, independent coverage in secondary sources does. As reliable, secondary sources (CNN, CBS News, New York Times, etc.) cover McKean in sufficient detail and depth, I support keeping the article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 20 April 2024 (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.