Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Grant Bennett

Add links
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 delete. I cannot see a consensus to merge or redirect this and the strength of the dignity / individual identity argument put up requires a consensus to not give it weight. This therefore defaults to delete. I should also say that the quality and tone of the discussion is to be commended

Spartaz Humbug! 12:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Sandra Grant Bennett

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sandra Grant Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bennett is not notable for anything she actually did. She has very limited coverage because she dated one famous person and was married to another. Notability is not inhereited, and she was not in the very small class of wives who get so much coverage or have some sort of position by virtue of being a wife leading to notability. The later is essentially limited to queens consort and first ladies, the former needs much more coverage than we have John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay on arguments to avoid during AfD discussions. The essay states: "This section is not a content guideline or policy." It is never a reason to delete content, only an admonishment against !voters during AfD discussions. -- GreenC 15:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course,
WP:INVALIDBIO. TompaDompa (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I didn't know about that, but it's also a little different because it is part of the Notability guideline which allows for inheritance when there is significant coverage eg. baby of royalty. If they are citing
WP:NOTINHERITED when there is (arguably) significant coverage it becomes confusing what they are trying to communicate: no inheritance (invalid), lack of significant coverage (valid), or both (valid). -- GreenC 04:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 14.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing as an editor, I have no opinion about the subject's notability, but I oppose a merger or redirect for the reasons expressed by S Marshall in the deletion review linked to above: "I think it's important to treat women as people in their own right and not as accessories to their husbands or their husbands' careers. That's why I'm not really very comfortable with the practice of redirecting a woman's name to that of her husband; the overtones of that are unfortunate. I'm particularly uncomfortable with redirecting a woman's name to that of a man she divorced thirteen years ago." Sandstein 19:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment IMDb is not a reliable source, and should not be treated as such. If you cannot source something in any other way than we cannot in any reasonable way know that it shows significance, and maybe not even that it is true. The one keep vote relies far too much on IMDb, and so I would say there is no valid keep argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given by Wm335td and Sandstein. Balle010 (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Balle010, I have not expressed a preference between keep and delete. Sandstein 09:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, on balance. We're weaving a biography out of content that's about other people. I don't find any substantive sources about Ms. Bennett, and that's a massive red flag. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect I get why we might not want to have a redirect, but frankly, his article is where we have coverage. Redirects are navigational aids, not a political or personal statement. " Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles." If someone is looking to learn what Wikipedia has about her, that's the right place to send them. End of story. As to notability, I can't find non-trivial coverage in things other than gossip-level stuff in the NYP and the Enquirer. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG - notability not inherited and this is at risk of becoming a
    WP:COATRACK. Distant second choice redirect, but Sandstein's concerns should be noted. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Can anyone give a policy-based reason not to have a redirect? Are we purely in IAR territory? If so, isn't RfD the right place for that discussion? Hobit (talk) 12:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And more to the point, I can't square not having a redirect and yet still mentioning her in the article. I mean the redirect just makes it easier to find that material. Nothing more. @Stifle and JzG: Hobit (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 14:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge we should always consider
    WP:ATD-M. The person may merit an article based on a combination of her acting career and her association with JD and TB. A merge with TB would be my choice if the article is not kept. Ritchie makes a good point, Tony Bennett doesn't have a "personal life" section. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Query https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/sandra_p_grant list more roles she was in than what you find at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0335639/ Did she have any roles which are notable enough to make her notable via the subject specific guidelines for actors? Dream Focus 16:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to be a different Sandra Grant (IMDb), with the credit for The Lieutenant being an error. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, makes sense. Odd she doesn't have an official website or social networking site. Dream Focus 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a different Sandra Grant in The Lieutenant . That other grant is not old enough to have appeared in the series 1963-64. Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. That
WP:FRANKENSTEIN. TompaDompa (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Sandra Grant Bennett is the correct age to have appeared in the series. So I do not know what we are discussing. She would have been 23-24 at the time of the series. Lightburst (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rotten Tomatoes filmography contains roles played by two different people named Sandra Grant: Sandra Grant Bennett (older) and Sandra P. Grant (younger). The only role listed on the Rotten Tomatoes filmography which was played by Sandra Grant Bennett is the one in The Lieutenant, with the rest played by Sandra P. Grant. That they are both listed under the name "Sandra P. Grant" is the result of an error by Rotten Tomatoes. Nobody is disputing that Sandra Grant Bennett was in The Lieutenant. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you both mean. She is TB's ex-wife and has children with him. She is in the TB infobox and in the article. Also see this article. She even bears his name. I still think it is a keep, but as an alternative to deletion... a merge there seems appropriate. Lightburst (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can quote
WP:DELREV again if that makes it easier to understand: I think it's important to treat women as people in their own right and not as accessories to their husbands or their husbands' careers. That's why I'm not really very comfortable with the practice of redirecting a woman's name to that of her husband; the overtones of that are unfortunate. I'm particularly uncomfortable with redirecting a woman's name to that of a man she divorced thirteen years ago. That's divorced thirteen years ago, but separated from forty-one years ago, mind you. I don't think She is in the TB infobox and in the article is much of an argument, because we have a way more appropriate target for a merge or redirect in Antonia Bennett. You could of course say that unlike in the article about her ex-husband, she is not in her daughter's infobox and only mentioned briefly in her article but that discrepancy is part of the problem that we do not wish to compound. TompaDompa (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not agree. You are quoting a single editor's statement, not any guideline or policy. It is more of a personal feeling than anything else. As a redirect or merge - she is well-known for the marriage and the article's are about her marriage to TB. Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbust understands, but disagrees at a philosophical level. He hates to see things deleted. To him and to those who agree with him, an AfD is a contest in which any outcome other than "delete" is a victory, and "delete" is a defeat. To this mindset,
WP:ATD is not a consideration to inform editorial judgment, but rather of a piece of heavy artillery with which to hold off the deletionists. Such editors will never be persuaded by an argument like mine.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
That seems a rather unjust characterization of the person. Is it because he is an active member of the Article Rescue Squadron? I'm a member and I was convinced. I never argue for anything I don't believe in and I doubt most others do so either. Dream Focus 23:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PA because I think you are a good editor who I have seen around the project and you may be having a bad day. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Why do you feel insulted or attacked? I used no attacking words, and I described the approach that both of you take to the vast majority of AfDs in an entirely non-pejorative as well as accurate way. I thought I was being completely respectful.—S Marshall T/C 09:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a big problem with starting the article by saying she was in relationships with two famous men and then nothing in the article doing ANYTHING to suggest notability. That’s not what Wikipedia is for. Trillfendi (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Folks, if you feel that having a redirect is offensive, fine I guess. But A) we don't make it harder to find things because of a "bad look". We don't make things harder to find because of issues of systematic bias. A redirect literally means nothing to non-Wikipedia people--it just makes it more likely they will find the most information we have on her. B) If you all feel we should, in general, not have divorced people redirect to their spouses, propose that change. As it is, it's a purely IAR argument. I don't think it makes any sense (see previous note about only being noticed by Wikipedia people). And to be clear, I fully understand why this could be considered offensive--that makes perfect sense. But is the next step to remove any mention of her in his article? I don't see how just deleting the redirect will change anything other than potentially make it harder to find what we have on her. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have anything on her in the other article other than she spent years living with him while he was still married to another woman, then after his first divorce married him and they had two daughters. Once her book is out, if it gets reviewed, which it most likely would, we can put a redirect to the article for it. Otherwise, no reason to have a redirect at all if the article is deleted. Dream Focus 23:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than if someone wants to know who she is, we can tell them all we have. Hobit (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    talk) 19:54, 2 October 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sandra_Grant_Bennett&oldid=982803385"