Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pauline Robinson Bush

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Robinson Bush

[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)

Taking to AFD since PROD was contested. Article subject was never noted for anything of her own merit, only gets attention for family affiliations. A separate article for this person is therefore not warranted per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:BIO. Don't let the sheer amount of prose or bloated size fool you. Much of it just goes into drivel on diagnosis and family grief, perhaps in some attempt to mask the lack of individual notability. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the children of US Presidents often get articles. I would expect there is an article on every Presidential child for at least the last few Presidemts. Heck we even have pages about Presidential pets. The death of Pauline was a significant event in her parent's life, discussed in biographies of 41 and rightly the subject of a wikipedia page. Better to have this on it's own page instead of trying to cram the material into already very long pages in her parents. Plus her brotger was President and another brother ran for President etc so there is intense biographical interest in all members of the family. I've seen Pauline discussed in detail on CNN twice on CNN just today (Sec State Baker was one of those discussing her death and it's impact on how he dealt with his own wife's cancer. Legacypac (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're being too lenient. Being a President's child doesn't automatically mean one deserves their own page. There is nothing usable on her that doesn't have to do with family connections. Any impact on parents is better discussed briefly in their own articles if anywhere. This article is also filled with excessive details on grief and her illness. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't supposed to just be a US President Wikia or a family history site, and see WP:WAX. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the WP:INHERITED essay you cite, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG". Robin Bush passes WP:GNG. I'd also argue she is a notable icon for pediatric cancer and leukemia, as her parents (at the time) radically donated her body for science and then devoted much time and energy to foundations for leukemia research, especially the The Robin Bush Child and Adolescent Center. Enwebb (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable icon" is puffery, and I wouldn't go so far to say she was "in close, personal relationships" in the way you've suggested as this is a toddler we're talking about, plus "can" isn't the same thing as "should". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of if you accept or reject that she is notable in terms of pediatric cancer, she meets GNG. Robin Bush is presumed notable enough for an article. Enwebb (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep For reasons previously stated. Notwithstanding objections by SNUGGUMS Gulbenk (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close The previous commentators got here first and said it better than I could. I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is topic of analysis in secondary sources. This is not to say I agree with keeping every child of every president or king, suppose for instance a newborn that lived for a few hours, in a era in which that was commonplace. Abductive (reasoning) 05:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep. This person has had a profound impact on the lives of other prominent people noted in this encyclopedia. It'd be imprudent not to retain the article. Stolengood (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Profound impact" is probably exaggerating as her death more than anything else prompted grief from parents, though impacting parents isn't in itself enough reason to keep a page regardless. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center about endowments that resulted from the cancer and death of Robin Bush and which went on to affect (that is have a "profound impact" on) many other sick children: "In 1953, the Bushes lost their three-year-old daughter Robin to leukemia. Since that time, the Bushes have been devoted to helping those affected by cancer and actively supporting visionary cancer research. The former President and Mrs. Bush have been involved with MD Anderson Cancer Center since 1977 when they joined the Board of Visitors, the institution’s volunteer advisory board. Mr. Bush served as chairman of the Board of Visitors from 2001 to 2003, never missing a meeting during his term. In June 2004, the Robin Bush Child and Adolescent Clinic at MD Anderson was named for the Bushes’ daughter in recognition of the extraordinary generosity and commitment of George and Barbara Bush to the MD Anderson mission to eliminate cancer." Found at: https://gifts.mdanderson.org/default.aspx?tsid=8517 Taram (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable part of the biographies of George H.W. Bush and Barbara even though she died 65 years ago, you could still see how much it affected them both after all that tme and it has been reflected in the coverage of late. Charles Adams, son of 2nd President John Adams, seems to have played a less significant role in his father's biography yet has his own article. Also a frightening and important reminder of how cancer can strike anyone, at any age. Hamptonian92 (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep More has been mentioned about Pauline Robinson Bush in the media and in cultural commentary, including political cartoons, since the deaths of Barbara Bush and George H.W. Bush in 2018. Wikipedia was my first choice of sites to learn more about this child. Removing this article would eliminate the logical first step for young, armchair, and serious researchers in learning more about a case that affected two presidents of the U.S. and at least one First Lady. Taram (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an obvious keep --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A person can be notable even if they died at a very young age. Has a lot of quality sources and meets the notability requirements. Linguistical (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable no matter her family and relationship Alex-h (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable due to multiple mentions in the media. This should be obvious. --rogerd (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is worth keeping. You may not agree with it but others have spoken.13-0 ruling.--

Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Please Looking after this biography, even from germany. Marc-Oliver Schulz (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2018 (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.