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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Walker Bush[edit]

Dorothy Walker Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete Not independently notable per WP:NN and WP:BIO Strothra (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 00:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The name and relationship does not alone make you notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- An important matriarch of a very notable family. See all similarly notable members of the Kennedy family. From the cited article in TIME Magazine:

DOROTHY (WALKER) BUSH 1901-92 The most competitive Bush, she bred in her children the drive to win and the rule never to brag about it. While in the White House, her son called her every day.

-- Dougie WII (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the single sentance in the Time Magazine article fails the "multiple" and "non-trivial" tests required of a notable subject, a google search turns up some specific extra information, such as this one indicating that a building is being named after her at the Southern Maine Medical Center and this one, an actual book with some honest to God biograph just on her, and a full-page NY Times obit on her (much more than trivial, IMHO) and another biography of her. While the article itself is stubby, she has notability in spades. Any of these sources, and more found in the google source, could easily be used to expand the article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you can have a building named after anyone for the right amount of money - it doesn't make the person it's named after notable just that the family who paid to have the building named wants to name it after one of their loved ones; hardly criteria for notability. Also, NYT runs obits of many people from notable families, but the individuals don't have to be notable themselves. In the biography you linked, she is not the primary subject of that work and is only given a chapter thus failing inclusion criteria. --Strothra (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Prescott Bush. The NY Times obit doesn't establish any notability other than the association with her son. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - apart from the possible medical centre building naming, she attracted significant press coverage on her 90th birthday, on her death, apparently has a museum in her name (Miami Herald - Aug 10, 2003 tells me she was a rail enthusiast although other sources make me doubt this). Other news articles "The first Mother" (Palm Beach Post - May 12, 1991), Dedication of a red Cross centre to her (Greenwich Citizen - Oct 17, 2003). I can also see references that she was a nationally ranked tennis player, is covered in Faith of Our Mothers: The Stories of Presidential Mothers from Mary Washington to Barbara Bush. Clearly written about enough for a good verifyable, neutral, reliably sourced article - Peripitus (Talk) 07:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obituaries in all the major papers of the USA, buildings named after her and a political matriarch. How can this not be notable? Nick mallory (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources mentioned by JaySweet, and others like an 800 word Washington Post obit, [1] more than meet the requirement for substantial coverage in independent sources. The fact that the sources give her coverage mainly because of her relationship to two presidents shouldn't matter - they give her coverage, so we should as well. There's plenty of information with whihc this stubby article can be fleshed out. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect. Unless some of you "keep"ers start to add in those sources and info, such as buildings, the article shows no notability, no matter how notable she actually is. —ScouterSig 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a positive argument. Short articles are for expanding not deleting or redirecting. If we did this to articles just because they are not expanded yet we'd have a parsimonious list of articles - Peripitus (Talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I change my vote to Delete. —ScouterSig 15:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't worry, Scout. There have been mentions in articles and books about Mrs. Bush, so souces are available. There was a similar debate about Gerald Rudolf Ford, father of President Ford, and the consensus was that a person who raised, and helped shape the values of, a future president is notable if for that reason alone. Although further "proof" is always encouraged, being one of the 41st president's parents is noteworthy. Mandsford (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect- This is not a genealogy site. Just because she gave birth, doesn't make her notable, did she write a book, start a cause, etc. "...relationship to someone noteable does not, in itself, make that person notable." Wiki: guidelines for notablity. Post is on RootsWeb, it's a genealogical footnote.---Iconoclast Horizon 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconoclast.horizon (talk • contribs)

• Comment --Guidelines such as those are explicitly just guidelines. A President of the United States, let alone two Presidents, are just not ordinary run-of-the-mill notable persons like an actor or singer etc. Obviously this woman was a powerful force behind her husband (a U.S. Senator) and her descendants that include two U.S. Presidents and also a governor of a major U.S. state so far. Plus, there seems to some things that make her notable on her own besides that like her tennis career. I really can't see how anyone could think that she's not notable. Dougie WII (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-- Apparently there are several people here that feel otherwise. I am of the opinion, that she is merely a genealogical footnote and that giving birth and playing tennis isn't notable. While I had read of her by default, being related to the President(s), she is otherwise not notable in her own right. This is merely my opinion, for this discussion---Iconoclast Horizon 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would share that opinion about most family (grandparents, siblings, offspring) of a President, but a parent (or for that matter, a step-parent) does somewhat more than merely bring a child into the world. Even if "Doro" had left her son on a doorstep, that would have been a major influence. Mandsford (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there is absolutely nothing in this page that shows she is independently notable; relationship with a notable person is irrelevant. What has she done? TerriersFan (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedians don't vote to see if a person is notable, the media outlets determine notability by their coverage. Her coverage in Time magazine and the Washington Post meets the Wikipedia standard. You don't always have to do something amazing to be notable, thats for Guinness World Records. Sometime greatness comes from refusing to give your seat up on a bus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, if sources are available (and it appears they are), there's no reason to delete the article of a matiarch of an important political family. Mr Which^??? 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm pleased to see this AfD going well beyond the generic notability test, but being the influential mother of GHWB amounts to some pretty significant spillover notability. The rationale for deletion seems to be that notability from incidental/trivial relationships doesn't really count as notability, but I don't agree. Emma Watson's famous role as Hermione Granger, for example, could have plausibly gone to one of a hundred otherwise non-notable actors, but because Watson happened to get it she (rightfully) has an article. I don't think there's really a distinction between "notability through doing things" and notability inherent to a person, incidental or not. People will seek information (and have information to contribute) on the subject either way, and that's what notability standards are really for. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a general rule, mothers of Presidents of the United States are notable. This is an exception to the general notion that "notability is not heritable", and it is based on the exceedingly high likelihood that any presidential mother will be the subject of significant scholarly research, for genealogical reasons, if nothing else. Spouses of US Senators are also generally notable, as (unless they are extraordinarily reclusive), they will receive substantial press coverage. Xoloz (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mother and strong influence on the religion and bearing of the past president. The incumbent is named (middle name) for her. Lits of cites verifying her notability. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Mperry (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (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.