Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa Grady Clay (2nd nomination)

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, as there is no consensus here to delete the article. Merge proposals and discussions are welcome at the talkpages of the relevant articles. Skomorokh 18:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Grady Clay

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Jack1956 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." Nowhere in the article, or the obituary, does in suggest that she did anything other than act as a mother and unskilled worker: if her son were not who he is, she would be in no way noteworthy. Also nominating Cassius_Marcellus_Clay,_Sr.. Kevin McE (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Not notable herself and notability is not inherited. Same with his father. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (Selectively merge) to Muhammad Ali. No independent notability other than as a parent of a notable person. Not much to say that is encyclopedic other than what is in the article about the son. Edison (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her sons page (and if anyone thinks there is anything worth merging they can do that.) (e/c) Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm concerned that a redirect may be confusing to the normal reader, given the similarity of the names, and the likelihood that the target article will contain very little information about the parents. Gigs (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough information in the news on Ali's family for an article, and his trip to Ireland to meet his cousins. Merge the two together if we only want one on his ancestry, its too big to be in his article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article's creator I believe that Mrs Clay, as the mother of one of the greatest figures of the 20th century, is notable in her own right though her influence on her son, and I believe I have demonstrated this notability through the use of independent sources and references. The article's logs show that people are coming here to look for information about her. Jack1956 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well established article which has already survived an AfD and which clearly demonstrates her notability. Dreamspy (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that the first AfD had a rough consensus of "merge", even though the admin closed it as "no consensus" Gigs (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who not only influenced the life of an important sports figure but who also has a considerable amount written about her. The article needs expansion and further research, but this seems clearly to be a notable subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? All the sources in the article are about Muhammad Ali, or simple obituaries. Simply saying "keep, there's sources out there" without actually coming up with them is unlikely to sway the closing admin. Gigs (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When the Associated Press publishes an obituary of you, or the New York Times, you are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC) --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says what? How do you know it's not just because she's related to a notable person? Even with that obituary, where is the significant coverage? 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

To guess why the New York Times and the Associated Press do or do not publish obits about people is Original Research. We just have to stick to the fact that they did publish one, which constitutes notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't show notability per WP:BIO and you haven't told me how it shows notability when I asked. Joe Chill (talk)

How do you know it wasn't because she was regarded as notable in her own right? Try doing a Google search on her...she receives a lot of coverage. She has been portrayed in two feature films and even has a listing on The Internet Movie Database in her own right[1], which I thought was regarded as a yardstick for notability here. Jack1956 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually IMDB wasn't even considered a reliable source at all until pretty recently (because the material was often provided by publicists/stars themsevles, and not fact checked at all), and it's still a somewhat controversial source. Gigs (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those films are about her son. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Films about her son in which she is portrayed by actresses. She also appears, and is credited as such, in various documentaries about her son. She is listed on IMDB in her own right under her own name, not her son's. A lot of less credible articles about people remain on here based on their appearing in IMDB alone. Jack1956 (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what if she was portrayed by actresses? The film was about her son and a movie about a real life person would inlude his or her family members. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether this passes the primary notability guideline is debatable, but I this might be one of those rare WP:IAR situations. This is a popular article that is well written and contains verifiable material, even if it is gathered from many minor sources.--Blargh29 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about a notable subject and has the sources and references to support that claim. The subject is more notable than Ali's wife, who has not been nominated for AfD. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. But recieving significant coverage in multpile reliable sources does. Rlendog (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:IAR Crafty (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Muhammad Ali. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:17, 7 September 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.