Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecilia Suyat Marshall

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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Suyat Marshall[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article that passes WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article almost as much as says that the sum and substance of any encyclopedia-level significance she might have resides in whose widow and mother she is. To that, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Largoplazo (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage of the subject besides mere biographical details. Also, not much more to add than WP:NOTINHERITED. Per below 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article and added many more citations. She played a supporting role in the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision, and her story is featured in the National Museum of African American History and Culture at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C. Her experiences have been documented by the U.S. Library of Congress. This all indicates that she is a notable person (only a very small number of people are featured in the Smithsonian or documented by the Library of Congress). She passes WP:GNG for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: [1][2][3][4]. She is talked about at length in any biography about Thurgood, as she was extremely important to his life and decisions.[5] The fact that so much detail has been reported on her as an individual indicates she should have her own page, as opposed to just a footnote on his page. WP:NOTINHERITED says, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." That applies here. Lonehexagon (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - following User:Lonehexagon's edits, I say keep. Significant conerage from the Washington Post and Amsterdam News, as well as inclusion in the Smithsonian Exhibit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenirwin (talk • contribs) 20:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work done by Lonehexagon! Passes GNG. I added a source to the article, too. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:notability now clear. PamD 21:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:agree and amplify @lonehexagon . Notability clear, although article is a work in progress like so many others.Kaylea Champion (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now contains good secondary sources.--Ipigott (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, piling up the snow here, meets WP:ANYBIO as contributing to civil rights. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (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.