Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lincoln Crume

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. Coverage is a bit scant, but the weight of the discussion indicates that it is sufficient for an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lincoln Crume[edit]

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

This person does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. All of the coverage appears to be trivial and not substantial. The only assertion of notability is that she was related to the U.S. president and that he mentioned her in an autobiographical piece, but that is not sufficient. ALXVA (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, she is only his aunt, not notable enough. CTJF83 chat 04:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Lincoln used her life as an example in his campaign, and 5 books about Lincoln deal substantially with her, she's notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's probably notable enough for a standout. None of the facts in here cannot be verified in reliable sources, and I've found mentions of her in a sufficient amount of sources to warrant a standalone article. There would be valuable pieces of verified scholarship applicable to Lincoln that would be lost if this was merged back to the article on him. Them From Space 07:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources appear to be there, particularly taking into account the see also section. The article would benefit form someone tracking the sources down and expanding it, but I'm not seeing any reason it needs deletion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the facts asserted in the article even if true would meet notability. Lincoln "highlighting" a relative wouldn't seem to be enough. And the coverage in the source cited for that assertion seems minimal at best. That does not mean she is not notable, but it is not at all clear that the sources referenced have any substantial (or more than passing) mention of her. A search for Mary Lincoln or Mary Crume in the Harrison book does not look promising either. ALXVA (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak on that it needs more improvemnets) I think the risk though is that it assumes notability is inherited. However, she as has been said by the others played a signifigant role in abes election, for that i think shes notable. but this article needs serious clean up and verifiability still Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't even claim that she played a "signiicant role" in Lincoln's election. Furthermore, as I noted in my comment above, the one source cited for her having played any role seems to be trivial, and also is original research. ALXVA (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Keep is weak, and i admit that fully. I would however endorse Mergeing and re-directing with Abraham Lincoln (captain) I think that would be appropriate considering the majority of the family history is in that article, and there really is only inherent notability going on here, and one event it seems. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2010 (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.