Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind

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. MuZemike 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Julia A. Berwind

Julia A. Berwind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This genealogical entry on a non-notable perosn violates a Wikipedia policy, WP:NOT:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Drawn Some (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep. In general, when the New York Times runs an obit article on someone, except as a local news feature, it's safe to infer notability. The inference is just about irrefutable when, as here, the obituary article describes the subject's activities as "widely reported in the press." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the deal is but given the discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some (two threads started by two separate editors suggesting as much...), these and the other recent ones from this user with copy paste rationales (yes, I know I replied in kind) seem somewhat malicious and possibly even uninformed as a result. We have two ANI threads in which two separate editors noticed possible wikistalking of Richard Arthur Norton by Drawn Some. Now look at the following stretch of edits from Drawn Some today in succession with no in between edits left out:

18:08, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

18:07, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW))

18:07, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

18:07, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly. (TW))

18:06, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baron Werner Ünderbheit ‎ (→Baron Werner Ünderbheit) (top) [rollback]

17:57, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Ajs502 ‎ (PROD nomination of Alice Claypoole Gwynne. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:57, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Alice Claypoole Gwynne ‎ (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:54, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson ‎ (→Jimmy Patterson)

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind. (TW))

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of Julia A. Berwind. (TW))

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Julia A. Berwind ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:52, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Julia A. Berwind. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl ‎ (→John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl)

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW))

17:39, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:37, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (PROD nomination of Olof Adolf Sjöström. (TW))

17:37, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Olof Adolf Sjöström ‎ (Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:35, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom ‎ (→Anders Örbom)

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 11 ‎ (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom. (TW))

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ‎ (AfD nomination of Anders Örbom. (TW))

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Anders Örbom ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom. (TW)) (top) [rollback]

17:34, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom ‎ (Creating deletion discussion page for Anders Örbom. (TW))

17:30, 11 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Anders Örbom ‎ (Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Örbom. (TW))

In ALL of the above Drawn Some has either nominated, prodded, or comment in AfDs for articles created by Richard Arthur Norton or that Richard Arthur Norton argued to keep. You would think after two ANI threads one would not fixate on another editor to such a degree. I checked these, after I noticed a delete comment in an Afd I had commented in and remembering the earlier ANI thread as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • A Anobody, that is all smokescreen. The topics of articles are notable and suitable for inclusion or they aren't. If you disagree with that consensus, work to change the consensus. If you have a problem or complaint about me take it to the proper forum. This is articles for deletion, not a venue for your irrelevant comments. Drawn Some (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Why after two ANI threads in which editors identified your following Richard around are you still doing so, to the point of saying to delete what cannot be deleted and to even renominating that which was kept a mere week before? If the nomination itself is either frivolous or part of a personal fixation, then it is indeed relevant as we do not humor disruptive nominations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • • Your comments and behavior here are unacceptable. I can complain about you at ANI and it means nothing. Anyone can complain about anyone. Your complaints are ill-founded and were said to be so. You just want to throw up smokescreen to keep these articles. No doubt there will be more editors "swarming" the AFD board to try to "save' these non-notable articles created by a serial creator of articles on non-notable topics. Yes, people are born, get engaged, married, and die and that is noted in the newspaper. There is no consensus for that establishing notability. There is no consensus a title makes someone notable. If you have a complaint about me cleaning up after norton then take it to ANI, not AFD. Drawn Some (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Per your suggestion, I have asked for hopefully neutral thoughts at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Drawn_Some_and_Richard_Arthur_Norton_III. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with The Elms. I suspect that some NYT obits are about local high society figures, and may be considered nonnotable for purposes of WP. however, the elms article seems notable, and her role there appears well documented in that article. the other problem with the NYT obit is we cant read it, and thus cant tell how notable she is made out to be in it. However, if WP has a policy on high society "notables" getting articles, even stubs, then fine, ill go with it. no comment on the above discussion of alleged improper behavior, not looked into it yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Newport, Rhode Island isn't local to Manhattan. It is almost 200 miles away. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply. I can read the Times obit; I even quoted from it. Although relatively short, it was not in the form the Times has used for local figures. More important, as I quoted, it described the subject as someone whose activities were "widely reported in the press," which is another strong signal of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep per Hullaballoo. I withdraw my Merge nomination. legit NYT obit is notability. thanks for your access.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep writing about my mom would be genealogy. A well referenced article is not genealogy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – bad faith, frivolous nom. Occuli (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Article is a stub, but notability is not about content of the article, but rather a property of the subject itself, independent of the quality of the Wikipedia article in question. The Google news search: [1] turns up lots of articles, given that many of these are very old, someone with rougly 300 news cites from the 1940's is likely to have LOTS of more sources availible in print only sources. Otherwise, based on evidence of the ANI thread, this AFD seems entirely vexatious and may even be speedy keep worthy for that reason. --Jayron32 21:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: A bad faith nomination used to harass another editor. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Despite the obvious bad blood between the nominator and other parties, I still think that _this particular article_ fails WP:N. Mrs Berwind has only - as far as the references we have at the moment go, which is all we should be working with - been covered in the press for giving parties which were mentioned in the society columns, and that's only because her husband was a wealthy man. She is _not_ notable in her own right. Tevildo (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The NYTimes obituary reports in its lead sentence that she was known for being active in "social welfare work," not simply for socialite activities. She certainly wasn't covered "because her husband was a wealthy man," since she never married. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A stub is acceptable in the case of inherent notability, but absent that, nobody has done anything to show that Julia A. Berwind was historically notable. We do not have an "obituary in the Times" exception (my uncle got an obit in the NYT even though he didn't live near New York, but I don't think I could prove him to be notable). The only reason that I don't say "delete" is because I know that Mr. Norton doesn't just create stubs and move on, and I expect that time constraints have kept this article from becoming more than it is so far. Still, this isn't a prima facie keep. Mandsford (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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.