Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Ann Blaesing (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 snow keep‎. I was the nominator but am closing the discussion per the clear consensus. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Ann Blaesing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, and meets the criteria for WP:INVALIDBIO. Furthermore, its content is entirely covered in Nan Britton. A previous 2017 AfD had transclusion issues and wasn't well-patronized. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, credible and reliable sources on the page pass WP:GNC. This is one of the most interesting stories in 20th century United States presidential history, and her notability exists within the sources and separate from her mother and her father (U.S president Warren G. Harding, Elizabeth Ann Blaesing was his only child, notable in itself as U.S. presidential children's pages seem acceptable as notable topics on Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with @Randy Kryn that WP:GNG is met here and this is a story worth telling in its own article. It's not a matter of being notable as a child of a president, but as the unacknowledged child of a president whose relationship was later proven (or so they say).

The fact her mother has an article doesn't mean she shouldn't as well - she's a person in her own right, who had a life story that's not set out in the other article. Both stories can be told alongside each other. The article could use some cleanup, as it launches straight into the claims of paternity without setting the predicate, but it's not a good candidate for deletion. Oblivy (talk) 04:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nom, the article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, and WP:INVALIDBIO. Oh, and Randy, WP:INVALIDBIO includes children of famous people. Just letting that out there for future use.

Keep. The sources already present in the article demonstrate WP:GNG. WP:INVALIDBIO specifically says That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A), emphasis mine. —siro χ o 05:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Concur with Siroxo's assessment.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite issues with previous iterations, this is an article about the individual that is thoroughly backed with reliable and verifiable sources about her that meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fully agree with Siroxo's argument for retention and concur with the other points that have been raised in favour of keep. Dunarc (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:56, 4 August 2023 (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.