Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rassy Ragland

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rassy Ragland

Article fails WP:N as has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, notability is not inherited from famous husband or son. Her single claim to fame - other than her husband and son - is being a panelist on a TV show which only ran for one season back in the early 1960s. A quick Google search only brings up hits related to either her son or husband; nothing about Rassy Ragland herself. Giant Snowman 21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's wholly irrelevant how long the show ran, or when; being a panelist on a notable game show is a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself. Notability is not lost by the passage of time; while people whose notability is decades old might be harder to write detailed articles about because the sources are less likely to be online (which does not mean that such sources don't exist at all), if a person was ever notable for any reason they stay notable permanently. And the article does not claim that her notability rests in any way on the fact that her husband and son were also famous in their own right, either; while it's likely true that nobody would have gotten around to writing this up without that additional note of interest, it's merely supplementary information and not the core of the notability claim. Keep, even if only because the deletion rationale is a misrepresentation. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless it can be demonstrated that this subject passes WP:BIO, the article ought to be merged to the show or a list of contestants thereof. Permastubs are not desirable. Skomorokh 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with Bearcat's statement: "while people whose notability is decades old might be harder to write detailed articles about because the sources are less likely to be online (which does not mean that such sources don't exist at all)", I do not agree that being a panelist on a notable game show automatically makes one notable. I think the problem here is that there are no sources, and that we can't find any (I know I sure can't!). I say, Delete, but, I welcome someone who can provide sources and would gladly say to keep if we could find reliable sources establishing notability. Cazort (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly, WP:NOTINHERITED applies, and as to the gameshow I agree with the nominator's view of the show's relevance and I note that there aren't articles for any of the other regulars (Stewart MacPherson, Gene Telpner, Nola MacDonald or Bill Trebilcoe)(http://www.tvarchive.ca/database/18885/twenty_questions/details/). PK T(alk) 19:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:NOTINHERITED apply to an article that isn't claiming inherited notability? And "other stuff doesn't exist" is no more valid an argument than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is — there can be articles about any of those other four people anytime anybody decides to write one. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You state above that "being a panelist on a notable game show is a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself"; to most readers, that translates as the contestant inheriting the notability of the show. There has yet to be any argument that the subject is independently notable. Skomorokh 03:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Skomorokh - her inherited notability is implied by her having been Neil's mother and Scott's wife. Her claim to fame in her own right is her role on the TV show, which in my opinion is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article because the show only lasted a few months in 1961. PK T(alk) 14:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are three sources of inherited notability, none of which I consider to justify a standalone article. Skomorokh 15:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does Edna Ragland's (Razzy) being repeated mentioned in various Canadian Who's Who over the years count for anything? 1938, pg.1408, 2001, pg.1408, 2002, pg.1453 , 2003, pg.1477... for example. My sense it they do not list just anybody. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - No, because is simply mentioned on her son Neil Young's entry; she doesn't have a seperate entry of her own. Giant Snowman 11:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's who's are very rarely valid sources for establishing notability because most of them are Vanity publications. Cazort (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability established via multiple, non-trivial reliable sources about her.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:30, 13 April 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.