Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Walker Bush Ellis

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 new references found, and apparent notabiltiy beyond her familial notability. I fully expect the article to reflect the references found and linked here at AfD to be worked into the article. If they are not, I fully expect a re-nomination for deletion. Keeper ǀ 76 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Walker Bush Ellis[edit]

Non-notable presidential relative who fails to meet WP:BIO. I've certainly nothing against Mrs. Ellis (her late husband was my first wife's boss, for what it's worth), but her claim to notability rests solely on that her brother and son are notable, and notability is not contagious. There's a near-complete lack of substantive material about the subject, and it's telling that a significant fact in the article involves the important people present at her wedding. RGTraynor 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence the subject has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I honestly can't think of anything wrong with the article. It has sources, so the infomation is true, and since it is a relative of a President, I think it should stay. America69 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided establish independent notability. Article should be expanded and additional sources added. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO, since one is someone elses obituary which has a bare mention, one is a picture in a book on the Bush family, one is a family tree, etc. Being related to a notable person does not create automatic notability. More than a directory type listing or passing mention is required. Edison (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the subject is not established. The current sources offer no more than the most trivial of mentions. Nuttah (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historians and amateurs alike are interested in the siblings of major historical figures. As long as there's at least a paragraph of information available, I think it's fine to give them artcles. There's more that can be said about her: [1], [2] Zagalejo^^^ 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-notability; not even asserted. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the new sources still do not offer reason to keep the article. She seems to be mentioned only in passing and only as a relative of President Bush's. As RGTraynor notes, the articles are never about her. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bush family, where "at least a paragraph" will be welcome. Historians, amateur and professional, won't confine themselves to a Wikipedia article in any event. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Certainly not to this article, in any event. I've no objections to a merge. RGTraynor 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I am somewhat prejudiced, though, since I am the principal author of the article.
While I agree that "notability is not inherited or contagious," I believe that Nancy Bush-Ellis is sufficiently notable in her own right (see the new sections I added today on "Political Activities," which highlights her activities in Europe to encourage voter participation, and "Volunteer and charitable activities," which mentions her financial support of establishing a rainforest preserve in Belize. In other words, she is not just a woman who attends kaffee-klatsches, but one who has serious interests in a range of fields. She has achieved notability, I submit, for both of these events. The notability argument is somewhat strengthened, too, by the citation from Time magazine; evidently they found her notable.
Thanks for listening; I will now defer to the judgment of editors more senior than I. — Objectivesea (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Time article has the same problem that is the same in each and every citation: it is not about Nancy Ellis. It is, in fact, about expat voters, and Ellis' sole mention in it is trivial: "Bush adviser Karl Rove, the President's aunt, Nancy Bush Ellis, and former Vice President Dan Quayle have all hit the European trail as part of the re-election campaign." That's it, and I think better of Time magazine than to believe that'd be their definition of notability. WP:BIO specifically enjoins against trivial mentions, requires that cites not be a press release, and that cites be both substantive and about the subject in question. The cites listed in the article are, in order, (1) a press release, (2) the obituary of her husband, (3) an article about a Missouri gubernatorial race, (4) a newsletter, (5) a genealogical chart, (6) a board of directors bio from one of her charities, (8) the aforementioned Time expat voting article, (9) a charity website listing her as an "honorary director" and nothing more, (10) an annual report listing her name among hundreds of others as a donor, (11) doesn't mention her at all, and (12) likewise doesn't mention her at all. The exception is the Kitty Kelley book, which may have substantive information about Mrs. Ellis and reasonably would at least mention her, but so far no evidence of the same has been provided, or any information as to what Kelley actually did write about her, if anything. So far, not a single substantive source has been provided. RGTraynor 10:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zagalejo^^^, I feel that the coverage this individual has received is above the line as non-trivial. RFerreira (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you identify any references which have more than trivial passing reference? I can't find any. Edison (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few more potential sources: [3], [4], maybe [5] (probably not important enough to mention in the article, but it's something) Zagalejo^^^ 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 3 and 4 look promising. They are clearly about her. Are 2 refs enough to satisfy the need for "multiple?" I agree that the third, about a traffic accident, doesn't seem worth including in the article. Edison (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, two refs are usually good enough. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 20 July 2008 (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.