Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alicia Nash

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) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Nash

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

Article subject fails WP:GNG. Any notability she had only comes in connection with her husband - and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Only sources found that talk about her independent of her husband are unreliable - some admitted "celebrity" gossip sites. Even the PBS reference is from an article about her husband. No notability on her own and pretty much known for 1E: marrying, divorcing, and re-marrying Nobel Laureate and mathematician John Nash - in other words, her marital relationship with him. Both Nash and his wife (the article subject) were killed a few days ago in a motor vehicle accident, so it follows that folks are interested in them. Even so, her marriage and death do not merit her an article on her own. She simply doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for obvious reasons. All you have to do is Google "Alicia Nash" Her life story is famous worldwide. A film was made about her life that won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Without her John Nash would not be notable, so do not attempt to prove your "Not Inherited" theory. HesioneHushabye (talk)
- The film was about Nash's life, not his wife's. If her life story truly were "famous worldwide", there would be reliable sources aplenty documenting her life independent of her marriage to John Nash. The opposite is the case. As far as Nash's notability, he attained his genius and achieved his mathematical and economic knowledge all on his own. Sure, as his wife, she was a support. But that doesn't make for content that meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Further, "not inherited" is not a theory but a Wikipedia guideline and policy. I know you created the article and are invested in it, however, article subjects must meet notability guidelines and this one simply does not. That's the plain and simple truth. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's pointless arguing about the film. Alicia is discussed extensively in Nasar's book. The film omits much of importance that was in the book (see our own WP section on this topic. The WP:RS material that exists on the subject qualifies her under WP:GNG. Agricola44 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - Actually the film is about their life together, the actress that played Alicia Nash won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, the actor that played John did not. You are false, as her life story is well documented in all books about John's life, that are linked on the article, including information about her prominent family and her own life before John. She had her own accomplishments. Feel free to read her obituary if you want to learn about her life. (link) [1] .HesioneHushabye (talk)
  - The link you provided is to an obituary. If we did articles on everyone who had a lengthy obituary, we'd be here for years going through the list of articles for deletion. An obituary in the NYT (or anywhere) does not establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. And the film was about Nash, an actress portrayed his wife because she was a part of his life - not because she was notable on her own. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your comebacks aren't proving anything besides the fact that you aren't familiar with the subject and refuse to do a Google search or read anything. I posted her obituary from the Washington Times above that lists her accomplishments. She doesn't need defending. HesioneHushabye (talk)
      - My responses are just that, not "comebacks". Being familiar with the subject is neither here nor there. All one need do is a simple Google search (which I did along with a Yahoo search) and fiund exactly what I stated in my original post here: nothing reliably sourced, nothing notable independent of her husband, nothing that allows for the article subject meeting the general notability guidelines. I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion if there were the things needed to establish notability. An obituary can note accomplishments all day long - if there is nothing from a reliable, unbiased source (obituaries are not unbiased/reliable sources except for things like birth dates/birth places/family relations) that supports and verifies those accomplishments, then we have nothing verifiable. The threshold for inclusion of content in Wikipedia is verifiability. The threshold for the inclusion of articles in Wikipedia is notability. No matter how you slice it, Alicia Nash does not meet those guidelines. Sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        That's nice. When someone writes a movie about you or plays you in a movie or when you die your death is as widely mourned and reported as Alicia, let me know. HesioneHushabye (talk)
        Me letting you know someone has written a screenplay about my life after I'm dead would be a pretty neat trick, wouldn't it? And just like Alicia Nash, I would fail notability guidelines even if my spouse was the famous one. :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alicia Nash has attracted public attention and comment. She clearly passes the GNG for the level of coverage provided by her in various published sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where? What links? What reliable sources? What coverage independent of her husband? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nasar's book talks extensively about her, as well. She clearly meets WP:GNG because of sources. There is no need to compare her to her husband's accomplishments. Agricola44 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, she's also a respected and accomplished academic even in her husbands shadow. On a side note: User:Winklevi, stop harassing people just because they vote and disagree with you. Seriously, you're acting like a bete noire with your relentless need to battle people just for expressing their opinion. That's not good form, and as this isnt a debate, ergo, neither is it constructive. JackTheVicar (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Forbes Nash, Jr. as notability is not inherited, though she is a plausible search term. WP:BIOFAMILY states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". WP:NOTNEWS might also apply here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTNEWS definitely does apply here, Snuggums. Thanks for adding that point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither INHERIT nor NOTNEWS apply here, since there is extensive WP:RS that discusses her personally and which pre-dates her death by more than a decade. Agricola44 (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I think it's obvious Alicia has her own accomplishments, so the claims of being notable only because she is married to John Nash are laughable. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not Paper [2] and separate articles are warranted when enough information is available to have such. HesioneHushabye (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- HesioneHushabye : Remember, Winklevi doesn't like this article, but claims amongst his/her greatest accomplishments to date is Bobby Kristina Brown. JackTheVicar (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jack, that was completely uncalled for, and a violation of WP:AGF. This AFD has nothing to do with whether one "likes" an article or not. Please also keep the focus on this article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of significant news coverage about Alicia Nash in her own right. There's no argument that John Nash was far more famous, hence the coverage of the recent car crash headlines with him. But that does not make Alicia Nash a simple appendage of her husband. She was clearly a brilliant and successful individual too. Sionk (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. Coulda, shoulda hadda article years ago.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. She is extensively discussed in sources, the best among these being Nasar's book. Agricola44 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. The idea that articles on notable women with more-notable husbands should be deleted or redirected on the basis that coverage is unequally shared is really unfortunate. If that's how people are (mis)reading WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLPFAMILY, then one or both needs fixing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love your comment Opabinia. The misogyny of some editors on Wikipedia, to delete articles on women, or not include them, is very sad indeed. I see it happen often here. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have !voted keep and given what I believe to be the salient reasons, commentators on the opposite side have likewise only submitted policy-based reasons for their "delete" !votes (mainly INHERIT and accomplishments). I have not sensed any sort of sexism here (having been a victim of it, I am sensitive to spotting this) and am increasingly concerned that seeing "misogyny behind every tree" serves only to trivialize the whole matter. Agricola44 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for saying that, Agricola44. The accusation is not only out of line, it's 100% inaccurate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't say anyone is personally sexist; only that inappropriately unequal results can come from application of putatively neutral guidelines. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. If you read carefully, the response was directed to HesioneHushabye, who cried misogyny. I don't think there's any WP:BIAS here. Her accomplishments aren't equal to her husband's, but that is not the crux of why she is notable enough for an article. Rather, she is extensively covered (as in Nasar's book), thus satisfying WP:GNG and this article is certain to be kept. So, I don't think there's any further need to discuss sexism, as it simply is not a factor here. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep FFS, WP:NOTINHERITED - an WP:ESSAY which is WP:NOTPOLICY does not say that subjects who happen to be related to other people have to pass a higher bar of WP:GNG. Don't be such a tool. Le petit fromage (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I will support the article for staying. However, the author of this article should add more references from sources prior to 2015. Also, please refrain from unnecessary attacks such as "don't be a tool" or crying misogyny. We are here to have an academic and collegiate discussion. In other words, no personal attacks and assume good faith.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2015 (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.