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. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Howell Rodham[edit]

Dorothy Howell Rodham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article makes no assertion of notability other than being the mother-in-law of a prominent politician. This is the definition of "notability by association" TM 01:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. She is the mother, not mother-in-law, of one of America's and the world's most well-known political figures, who has been a First Lady, Senator, record-setting if ultimately losing candidate for U.S. President, and Secretary of State. She, and her role in Hillary's upbringing and personal and political formation, have been written about in numerous high-quality sources, as per the References section in the article. She is notable in her own right, and merits an article of this modest size. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What her daughter has done is of no importance here. Her notability is determined on her own merits. What has she done besides raise a famous child?--TM 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about most of the entries in Category:Parents of Presidents of the United States. The parents of certain very famous political figures themselves gain enough fame and importance to merit articles. Although Hillary didn't quite become president, she is at a pretty much equal level of fame with them (check out List of books about Hillary Rodham Clinton for how many books have been written about her), and her mother thus falls into the same notability range as presidential mothers. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read this and this, which will tell you what is incorrect with your argument. Basically, just because other stuff exists (like articles on parents of politicians) doesn't mean that we shouldn't delete this.--TM 01:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assertion that these people were just "stuff". Each of them had lives that were researched and written about by serious authors and scholars, because they became part of the fabric of history. Same situation here. If writers for the New York Times and Washington Post and big name biographers think that her life has been significant, then so can we. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article is well sourced and establishes notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - are we really discussing this? She is clearly notable in her own right. Many independent and reliable sources assert to this. Esasus (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - She's not notable in her own right, that bio reads like my grandmother's or any other normal person in this country. The only reason that article exists is because of association, that's it. And that's not being notable in her own right, not in a million years. §FreeRangeFrog 05:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited. Also, multiple WP:RS suggests notability, but does not confirm it. We have to use our judgment and common sense here. It doesn't appear that she has done anything other than raise a notable child. The article is well-sourced, yes, but she hasn't done anything that confers independent notability in my opinion. Firestorm ^Talk 05:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Is the subject of non-trivial secondary sources, the core criterion of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Just because "notability is not inherited" doesn't mean notable people who are related to other notable people are magically non-notable. Besides, the "not-inherited" clause does call for common sense and in this case, being the parent of one of the most notable US Senators in history not to mention Secretary of State is easily one of those common sense exceptions. --Oakshade (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be stretching to call her "the most notable US Senator[] in history", but I agree with the general idea. Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, it was a typo. I meant "one of the most..." --Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not usually on the "keep" side of things, but this is a well-sourced article that is nicely integrated into Wikipedia. She may not be independently notable without her daughter's achievements, but I don't think that is a good enough argument to delete it. Jvr725 (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither is this. Just sayin' :) §FreeRangeFrog 06:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only reason we are aware of her existence is because of her daughter. Prime example of inherited notability. I agree with FreeRangeFrog above, this bio could easily be that of my grandmother. --L. Pistachio (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep; Well-sourced article about a person who had great influence over one of our most prominent political figures. No-brainer. Tvoz/talk 08:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete notability is not inherited, nor is it transmissible back upwards. Never heard of a person notable for being a mother or homemaker; star in an ad, or join in the campaign trail makes her notable? I think not. A merge into/redirect to Hillary Rodham Clinton would be acceptable. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People are interested in the close relatives of major historical figures. The article has been viewed as many as 4,000 times in a single month. Plus, there is enough sourced information here to make a merge unwieldy. Similar articles have survived AFD in the past. (If pressed, I'll provide examples.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I agree completely with the variants on the "fabric of the individual" approach. Despite whatever meritocracy we'd prefer, these individuals are notable by virtue of their association, which is in fact different than inherited notability. More on point, she has WP:RS. This might be the basis for an essay: If you have secret service protection you get a wikipedia page (watch someone dig up the precise contours of who has secret service details just to refute me). Shadowjams (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Roger Clinton, Jr., Roger Clinton, Sr.. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe article is well sourced. The American public has decided that relatives of public figures are notable, this is not the place to question that. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine this wasn't about Hilary Clinton for a moment. Lets say this is an article about the mother of Danielle de St. Jorre, former foreign minister of Seychelles. Would you still think she is notable?--TM 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was actually something to say about her, then why not? I think you're conflating notability with importance. Notability on Wikipedia is not derived from our own opinions on who is and isn't important. It's derived from the fact that other people have decided to write about someone in reliable sources. Zagalejo^^^ 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is not inherited, but there is enough here to satisfy WP:BIO in her own right. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge to Hilary Rodham Clinton; I agree it's notability by association, but the material should be on Wikipedia in some form. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Hillary Rodham Clinton isn't a realistic option. That article already has a fairly lengthy description of her upbringing, including a few brief references to her mother; adding all of this material would throw off the balance. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A clerk-typist, homemaker and mother. The only references are due to who she is related to. Thus the appropriate place to mention her is in the relative's article. No independent notability. Fails WP:BIO. Notability does not spread to relatives of politicians. Edison (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it can. Even if it couldn't, and that didn't make people notable, there's enough here in any case. Shadowjams (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A few notes on WP:INHERITED because it's being thrown around incorrectly here. 1 It's not policy, it's part of the arguments to avoid essay. So you can't just cite it and move on. 2 The WP:INHERITED is talking primarily about child-parent articles, not children [people] and parents [people]. At the end it talks about celebrities, but it's a stretch to call the secretary of state a mere celebrity. 3 People are confusing importance or merit with notability. An individual may well be notable by association, without having done anything to deserve it on their own. WP:NOTABILITY is relevant here in the article space. That means the content needs to be limited to the things that make the individual notable. But none of those suggest deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You seem to have misread or misunderstood WP:INHERITED. Assuming good faith, I will not say you are misrepresenting it. WP:INHERITED says "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." My understanding of this is that for the former First Lady's Mom to have an article, she should have "done something significant and notable in (her) own right" such that she would merit an article even if her daughter and son in law weren't famous. She has only been covered because of her relatives, thus she fails this guideline. Come back when she does something other than be a mother, mother-in-law and grandmother. Maybe she will write a best-selling book or something, other than just be along for the ride. The failure to satisfy WP:BIO is exactly the same as if she were a baby of a celebrity. The press coverage derives from the famous relatives, not from her actions. Edison (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should all assume good faith. When it comes to notability guidelines, the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, and common practice often all diverge, and thus reasonable people can come to quite different conclusions. But I disagree with your equivalence of parents to babies and their being "along for the ride". A lot of Hillary's characteristics and personal traits and "firsts" as a woman are directly attributable to attitudes and teachings and nature of her parents, and her politics ultimately matched her mother more than her father. This is why biographers study parents of presidents and other top-level political figures. Only one in a million of us has what it takes to reach the top of the political pile. How do they get that way? The parents have a lot to do with it. They weren't along for the ride, indeed for many years they were pushing the car. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's assuming good faith here. The mention that it could be otherwise is bizarrely puzzling to me. Because you disagree with an interpretation should not be an opportunity to suggest mal intent.

I actually explicitly mention the celebrity part of the essay. Again, I'm not sure a celebrity, a term usually reserved for entertainers, applies to a secretary of state. However, it's all moot because as my first point also points out (and remains unanswered) the inherited piece quoted from is not policy, it's an essay. Your interpretation of the essay I think is a reasonable one of a few, but it does not answer the other points I made. The most important point is that WP:INHERITED is not official policy like WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY or WP:OR is. Wasted Time points out the real crux of the issue is on reasonable interpretation and notability concerns, not some heuristic roughly sketched out in an essay. Shadowjams (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She is notable by her mention in WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Although not a wikipedia policy or guideline, a reasonable test for this sort of "inherited" article, I think, is whether many users are likely to look up this individual seeking information about them. Here the answer is, in my opinion, a strong yes....and I say this because I have previously looked up Mrs. Rodham myself on Wikipedia. The WP:INHERITED guideline is a good principle when addressing obscure figures (eg. we do not need an article on Judy Garland's grand-aunt), but this seems to be exactly the sort of situation for which WP:INHERITED should not be imposed dogmatically. Vartanza (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2009 (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.