Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knox Taylor

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Knox Taylor

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

Contested PROD with the rationale "She is notable in United States history". However, I see nothing in the article or any outside references that demonstrates this. Notability is not inherited, and she isn't noted for anything other than her family affiliations, which is not enough by itself to warrant a separate article per WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:INVALIDBIO. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The daughter of a future president of the United States marries the future president of the Confederacy. That's a pretty fascinating intersection, and add to that a look at a time gone by when it wasn't safe to travel around the country in the summer for fear of disease. She's described in a number of books per this search. There is real historical value here (I either never knew, or had forgotten about, her until running across this) and Wikipedia is a better place for this article being present. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that being a POTUS's daughter doesn't by itself make one notable, and neither does being the wife of a President of the Confederacy. Per WP:INVALIDBIO, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasted Time R. Omnedon (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my above response; fails WP:Notability (people) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Omnedon and Wasted Time R, sufficient sources in the books to justify WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer number of references mentioning her is moot when she fails WP:BIO Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasted Time R-thank you-RFD (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted's rationale is flawed though as indicated in WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasted Time R. She is a subject of much grade school trivia, due to the nature of her marriage and her father. Nothing hurts to keep this article. Spartan7W § 13:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Shakes head in disappointment) "Nothing hurts to keep this article"..... see WP:Notability (people) for why this shouldn't have an entry. Being part of "grade school trivia" is insignificant, given that it is after all trivial information. Wasted Time R's rationale is wrong since one does not become notable solely because of family affiliations. Not sure why that's being overlooked and/or disregarded. One needs to be noted for more than just family affiliations to warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly meets the WP:GNG with reliable sources such as this one and this one so I have trouble understanding any rationale for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or consider this 1941 Louisiana travel book, which tells the story of Sarah Knox Taylor and then describes how her grave and the cemetery it was in were restored in what became the Locust Grove State Historic Site. Her story is historically compelling and has been for a long time. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Her story is historically compelling" and being buried in a historic site by themselves are meaningless in regards to WP:BIO and per WP:INTERESTING. Per the "Invalid criteria" and "Family" sections of this page, she fails notability criteria for biographies since she isn't noted for anything on her own that doesn't have to do with family affiliations. WP:BIO requirements are more nuanced than simply "is covered in reliable sources", and WP:BIO is the relevant notability criteria for biographies. It exists for a reason, so it should be applied here. The sheer number of references discussing her in this case are entirely moot because she's only noted for family connections. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretations. WP:INVALIDBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" – well, there is significant coverage on 'A' in this case. And WP:BIOFAMILY says "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable" – but these books and other sources talking about Sarah Knox Taylor are doing more than just mentioning her in passing. And sometimes you have to use a little common sense. This article has been in WP since mid-2004, which is pretty early on, and you're the first person who's tried to delete it. From looking at some samples on the stats page it gets about 20,000 views a year. That's over 200,000 people who have benefited from reading and learning about this historically valuable story. That's the promise of WP being delivered, not a fault to be corrected. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, "common sense" would say not to have an article on people only known as someone's family member; WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". View count and amount of time article has existed also do not by themselves indicate notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wasted Time R; the Wikipedia Community needs to pay attention to what the readers are reading and would like to see included in Wikipedia. I agree with Wasted Time R that we need to use common sense. We need to pay attention to the readers of Wikipedia. Thank you-RFD (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close The nominator's arguments would be valid if the article's subject had drifted into obscurity as the wife of a long-forgotten whomever. But her marriage to Jefferson Davis makes her unique as the only woman in U.S. history whose father and husband would become heads of state. Furthermore, the subject has been the subject of considerable scholarly research, which more than satisfies WP:RS and WP:BIO requirements. As this AfD is clearly not generating any momentum for the article's deletion, I would invite the bolder members of the Wikipedia family to consider closing it earlier. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly a "speedy keep"; notability is not inherited, and being related to political famous figures does not by itself make one notable per WP:BIOFAMILY. Your reasoning is therefore flawed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2015 (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.