Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Suckley
Source: 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. Alabamaboy 00:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret Suckley
- Margaret Suckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Appears to be non-notable. She was the close friend of a president, nothing else. Aqwis 21:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per a lack of notability. A single feature in the Times does not meet the definition of significant coverage. VanTucky Talk 22:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Single feature in the Times? Please note the other nine references in the article, including an entire book: Closest Companion: The Unknown Story of the Intimate Friendship Between Franklin Roosevelt and Margaret Suckley by Geoffrey Ward ISBN 0395660807 (my emphasis). Thanks --TreeKittens 03:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the Suckley-Roosevelt letters were published in a 1995 book that received considerable attention at the time (because it was a surprise to even close historians of FDR). The letters themselves were once in the collection of Conrad Black.[1] At worst merge and redirect to Wilderstein, the mansion she owned until her death. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to me that all of her notability is inherited. She fails to be important when taken solely on her own history and sourcing. While there are notable and useful facts pertaining to her life, they seem to be more relevant for other subjects (such as the FDR, mansion, and book articles) rather than in a biography revolving around her. VanTucky Talk 23:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability per WP:N is clearly established by significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Many of these sources are references for the article. Content is clearly verifiable per WP:V by reference to the cited sources. There is absolutely no reason in policy to delete this well referenced and well written article. Notability is determined by the sources - not our opinion. --TreeKittens 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. —TreeKittens 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. —TreeKittens 02:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per User:Tree Kittens. Sarcasticidealist 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced and books have been written on her and her relationship with a president. This does not fall under a notability is not inherited banner, that is to cover trivial mentions. Suckley is a central character here. Nuttah68 08:44, 16 September 2007 (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.