Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

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The result was withdrawn by nom, early consensus that a statement of great inherited wealth alone is both an assertion of importance under CSD and if this has been reported in reliable sources, is notable. I suggest the content could be helpfully merged into Hetty Green but this should be dependent on editor consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• Comment If your going to say an article fails
  WP:BIO, so we all can know what your thinking. You can't tell someone its in the Bible without citing a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Last time I looked,

WP:BIO was a much quicker read than the Bible :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yet, I still haven't a clue which

WP:BIO over and over and it still will not tell me which one you think it fails. I can't fix, unless you tell me what is broken. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll provide one: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1]. Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary." In the English-language Western speaking world, great wealth is considered so notable, both in our times, and in Harriet Sylvia Ann Howland Green Wilks' time, that there well known lists issued year after year of the wealthiest men and women, businessmen, Asian businessmen, actors and actresses, models, race car drivers. You cannot walk into a newstand or into a well-developed on-line news site without finding some list or article about wealth. "Wealth" is "worthy of notice," and Green Wilks' wealth in her time, and her means of managing it, was "unusual enough to deserve attention and to be recorded" in the archives of newspapers all over the United States. Great wealth meets the notability requirements of Wikipedia for biography. --Blechnic (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the references provided in the article indicate sufficient coverage of this person in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of her notability pursuant to our general notability guideline. John254 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable. This isn't a vote... or at least it isn't supposed to be. --Rividian (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Hetty Green (her mother) who was certainly notable. The coverage of the daughter is an insignificant amount that does not meet the general notability guideline. The references about the daughter can be moved to the mother's article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The combination of the $95 million in 1951 & the lawsuit, with the article in Time (which refers to an earlier article as well) , is sufficient. There is undoubtedly more documentation on the lawsuit to be found. Two feature articles in that magazine is sufficient, even without the LATimes DGG (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The woman is every bit as notorious in her own right as mommy dearest, well, almost. Sad little article (in length only, content's fine), needs some work, but there's no reason to delete this just because everyone on the web hasn't heard of her yet. --Blechnic (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator, meets the standard of Wikipedia notability since the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." An interesting part of Americana, that was sent down the memory hole, and now back. It was speedy deleted because Gwen Gale stated "wealth [is not] an assertion of significance", despite the obituaries in the LA Times and multiple Time magazine articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2008 (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.