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 redirect to Desi Arnaz. Star Mississippi 00:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Mack Hirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

An editor even writes in the first paragraph that she is best known for being married to a celebrity. That in and of itself makes her not notable. BostonMensa (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This article was missing information. She was a co-founder of important racetrack and a significant figure in thoroughbred racing. Perhaps that would meet the significance requirement? Intrepid203 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder I’d that is emough to warrant an individual article Maddy can’t just be mentioned in Desi’s reticle. BostonMensa (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nominator is mistaken. Being married to a celebrity does not "in and of itself makes her not notable." Quite the opposite, in fact: a relationship with a very famous person often leads to fame. pburka (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• fame and notability are two totally different things.

  I am not mistaken. I have seen many people say the same exactly the same thing in other discussions and it is always under the same conditions. Usually from what I remember, it is abut a child but whatever the relation, the theme is notability is not inherited.

  and btw, we are allowed to disagree but saying I am mistaken implies we are discussing a fact and mot an opinion. Simply because we disagree doesn’t mean I am mistaken. BostonMensa (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect you're thinking of the essay at WP:NOTINHERITED, the gist of which is that notability isn't automatically inherited. You wrote that her marriage "in and of itself makes her not notable." I stand by my position that this is incorrect and I think such a position is contradictory to WP:5P2. pburka (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am thinking of multiple comments in discussions like this where the article’s authors may or may not have explicitly said “so and so is best known as the spouse/child/parent of this other so and so” but the article was not any different than this one when I nominated it. And while I do not remember verbatim what people said in their comments, let alone who said it and which articles were being discussed, I do remember the common theme of celebrity by association/celebrity not inherited. BostonMensa (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that proximity to celebrity doesn't automatically confer notability, but your statement was much stronger: perhaps stronger than you intended. You said her relationship "makes her not notable". Did you mean to say the relationship "does not make her notable"? pburka (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The WP:INVALIDBIO guideline includes, That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A), and I think the emphasis on whether significant coverage exists is a helpful focus for these types of discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant exactly want I said, no more and no less. Reread the part where I said that at the time I nominated the article, an editor said she was “best known” for being married to Desi Arnaz. A lot of women at the time might have been envious n but being married to an entertainer in and of itself is not notable. I can’t be any clearer than that. You can continue to discuss it all you want but this is the last time I a, commenting on the subject. Other people can weigh in if they want. BostonMensa (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I have not found sufficient independent and reliable support for notability; for example, in the NYT obit for Desi Arnaz, she is only mentioned at the end of the article as one of his surviving relatives, and then the NYT issued a correction noting she died in 1985. From the Clement L. Hirsch article, I found a brief announcement of her marriage and divorce in Time magazine; she is not named as an Oak Tree Racing Association co-founder in Clement Hirsch's LAT obit. The book cited in her article is not particularly in-depth coverage about her (primarily at pp. 273-274, then some gossip/speculation related to Desi, on a few other pages). I have no objection to a redirect to Desi Arnaz, where there is some information about her. Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for all this information, very helpful. Could someone help set up a redirect to Desi Arnaz while keeping some of the information on this current page? Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Intrepid203 (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I considered suggesting a selective merge of content to Desi Arnaz, but based on available sources, there does not appear to be independent and reliable coverage of her role in thoroughbred racing or the Oak Tree Racing Association to support merging that content - in her article, the source cited refers to the role of her former husband, not her. Also, a redirect is one of the possible common outcomes at AfD, so it might be created after this AfD ends, or could be requested afterwards. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree, only notable as a side note in Desi Arnaz's life. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds like great solution! Intrepid203 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never figured out why you need to redirect rather than delete or merge. But either way, someone interested enough can incorporate the information amd citations to Desi’s page. BostonMensa (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, redirect is probably better. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2022 (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.