Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estelle Skidmore Doremus

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Estelle Skidmore Doremus

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

Notability not established. Only cites are obituary + a primary source related to a club.

Related AFDs:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Findagrave entry here, second plaque states Charter member National Society DAR; Charter officer 1892 & Regent, NYC DAR (1892-1894) (before the 1896 national establishment); was one of very few daughters still living when these organizations were established, the majority being descendants. This 'club' was chartered by the United States Congress and current chapters in Australia, Europe, & South America. Dru of Id (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTINHERITED that's interesting but she isn't notable by virtue of the notable clubs she belonged to - She must satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO as an individual. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- Extensive revisions have been made and new sources added to demonstrate notability. Placepromo (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep- The subject received a full editorial obit in the New York Times and such an obit has always been considered to be irrefutable evidence of notability. An editorial obit in the New York Times is unlike a local newspaper obit that everyone in the town my get, nor a paid obit. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill where similar justification is used by User:DGG Placepromo (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussions with DGG and other. New York Times obits are not like local city obits and are quite selective. Per previous consensus, it is enough to demonstrate notability if the New York Times bothers to write a non-paid, editorial obit for someone. Likely, other sources exist and are just hard to find, but this alone should suffice. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears well referenced and subject seems to be notable. Yworo (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (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.