Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois Rice

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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Rice[edit]

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

The General Notability Guideline has not been met. The coverage I was able to find is split between two categories: coverage related to her death, and coverage related to her daughter. I would propose merging to the article about her daughter Susan Rice but she's not even mentioned in it. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge: Her supposed involvement with Pell Grant seems to indicate notability, to an extent at least. In addition to this, she is the spouse of a notable person. RoCo^(talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the spouse (or mother) of a notable person isn't a reason to keep an article. Notability is never inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, which is why I ended the claim of notability before that sentence. Pell Grant involvement, however, seems to suggest something. RoCo^(talk) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG is met spectacularly well with sources found in just the shortest of google searches [1] [2] [3] [4]. If obituaries aren't pay-for content but are independently composed features, they count as reliable and significant. Yvarta (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I said in the nomination, the coverage is all about her death, with passing mentions about her being Susan Rice's mother. There's nothing else. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused Exemplo347 - beyond being obituaries, how are they about her death? If you read the articles, her death is mentioned only in one or two sentences, and the rest is about her life and accomplishments. If she was murdered horribly or died in an unusual way and the articles reflected that, then I might agree with you. Yvarta (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"How are obituaries about her death?" Exemplo347 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point, Exemplo347. They address her death, yes, but that is not their only topic - these are not paid obituaries placed as advertisements for a funeral: they came out after her death because her death spurred the new attention. If they had been spurred by a firing from a major company, but still focused on her and not the firing in great detail, then they would be about her, not the central event that led to the media coverage. Yvarta (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, due to Pell Grant connection.Un school 03:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant obituaries in multiple national newspapers seems to meet basic criteria for notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a long in-depth piece run on your death in WSJ and NYT (and several other places) is a clear sign of your significance. Besides that, a BEFORE here should be done. For instance I found the following two pieces from 70s in NYT - [5] (on her marriage (which was covered since both parties were significant) - added to article) and [6] (didn't add - long opinion piece by her). There's probably plenty more in print archives - just need to look under the right names.Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WSJ and NYT editorial obits clearly show notability.--Jahaza (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2017 (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.