Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Cleveland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Cleveland

[edit]

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

Ruth Cleveland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The content in it is already covered at Grover Cleveland#Marriage and children and Baby Ruth#Etymology. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nomination, the article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the info in the article is also covered on the Grover Cleveland page, as per the nom. Just because you were birthed by a president doesn't mean you deserve your own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncompA (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This child was much more than just a child of a president. Please note "Her birth between Cleveland's two terms of office caused a national sensation. Interest in her continued even after her father's second presidential term was over.", and then her tragic death at a yound age threw many into mourning. Her life, as a topic, stands alone encyclopedically apart from her historical societal effect. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A family page could be written without removing the pages, such as this one and those which easily make GNC. If you'd like a page on Malia Obama please write it (Barron Trump is not old enough for a stand-alone page as yet) but let's not throw out Baby Ruth with the bathwater. Plus, if Wikipedia had been invented in 1911 instead of 2001, a page on Ruth Cleveland would have been posted and easily kept, so this seems a case of time-bias. Encyclopedia's should have long memories and not let time erode. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ANYBIO. It's a sad story, but the dearth of sources reflects the fact that 12 year old children rarely achieve enough to garner the kind of coverage we require. Not just in newspaper coverage of the time but in subsequent, in-depth scholarship. SN54129 13:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Delete, Keep, Redirect, Merge, there is no consensus here. And remember, an article has to exist before an article can be Merged into it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the candy bar with the same name, that seems to be what her "notability" hangs on. She didn't accomplish much notability-wise, but was seemingly the reason the candy bar was named, in a not-so-obvious attempt to cash in on the baseball player's name. Had they not invented the candy bar, we wouldn't be talking about her. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's notable for being the namesake of a famous candy bar and also as the daughter of a U.S. president because, on its face (prima facie), she was notable enough at the time to be the namesake of a famous candy bar, making her notable indeed. I'd think being notable for two things would keep this page. Reading your comment inspired me to add her photograph to the Baby Ruth page, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randy Kryn and WP:IMPACT (what he seems to be alluding to), though admittedly we're likely in WP:PERMA territory with this one. Also WP:10YT, as this subject's notability has stood the test of time. 2601:204:C901:B740:44F8:98CE:740E:7179 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least to 2012 (even if they got it wrong):
    Waxman, Olivia B (July 4, 2012). "Happy Birthday to America—and her First Daughters". TIME. Retrieved August 15, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: year (link) Djflem (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And 1984:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1984/06/16/009796.html?pageNumber=22 Djflem (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT piece is a letter to the editor and not reliable. The Time article speaks to the notability of first daughters generally; two sentences in a listicle is not WP:SIGCOV. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Was in response to this: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/28/style/correction-222816.html, but that point about the candy name has been covered elsewhere.... Djflem (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coverage in the New York Times, whilst society page stuff (3 articles), confers some notability. An obituary in it, (added to article) definitely does:
  • "Ruth Cleveland Dead" (PDF). The New York Times. January 8, 1904. Retrieved August 15, 2023.
  • "Ruth Cleveland Buried" (PDF). The New York Times. September 9, 1904. Retrieved August 13, 2023.
  • 1892:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1892/10/03/106086591.html?pageNumber=1
  • 1897:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1897/04/03/101102770.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0
  • 1899:https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1899/12/03/100459721.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0

Djflem (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that an obituary is significant, but the three very short tabloidy articles don't contribute. (E.g. getting a pony and a dogcart from a family friend doesn't speak to Ruth's notability.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • But having a major national newspaper talk about that & other little details speaks to the nation's rapture. Djflem (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Djflem: "Speaks to" is original research; it's not the same thing as "a historian said", and no one here has quoted a source that speaks to such feelings... can you link to the three best sources that meet each point laid out at WP:GNG? I'm particularly looking for significant coverage that avoids WP:BIOFAMILY problems (and WP:BIO1E around her untimely death). The NYT obituary is one, but the overall lack of those sources is why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place. The subject could be covered at about the same level of detail in Grover Cleveland or a new "Family of Grover Cleveland" article, with additional content at Baby Ruth. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE may have revealed the sources you seek. (see below). While the subject could be covered in another article,including a non-existent [[Family of Grover Cleveland (currently a redirect), there appears to more than sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG, making that unnecessary. Djflem (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point I've been making. Please stop just going in and erasing articles on your own without discussion of any kind, especially U.S. presidential relative pages (or any pages which even have a snowball's chance at the North Pole of being kept). You may have did those in good faith, and hopefully no more, but yes, Ruth Cleveland is an example of why it's never a good idea to do that for sourced or historically-connected pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your desire to create a better encyclopedia. Please recognize that's why we are all WP:HERE. I must say I do not agree that it is never a good idea to be bold in editing any set of articles, that notion is not in the spirit of pillars 3, 4 and 5. Good faith WP:BOLD edits are fine, and good faith reverts are fine. And indeed, a good discussion is taking place right here. —siroχo 16:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An oversight, perhaps, but it would have been better if the link had been restored after the BRD cycle, especially since a bluelink to the existing article might have led to this discussion.Djflem (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair sentiment, and I'm glad it was noticed before the close of the discussion, even if there are no deadlines. Thanks for restoring the link. —siroχo 21:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no one page to merge this to. Ruth Cleveland is notable and topic-important in three ways. She's the namesake of one of the most successful candy bars in history, which would be the most likely merge target...at least to some editors. But she's also a president's daughter who was herself famous and notable enough to have a notable candy bar named for her many years after her death and her father's presidency. She is literally alluded to on Wikipedia's main page in today's feature article summary (and linked at least twice in the text of the feature article about her mother, which is a main reason I'm leaving this comment). Then, even if a page was written about her extended family, her stand-alone page would still make her notable as, and I'll repeat, the namesake of one of the most successful and oldest candy bars in history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this History source Babe Ruth or Baby Ruth: Who Was the Candy Bar Named After? notes "Newspapers and the American public paid close attention to “Baby Ruth” after her father returned to the White House in 1893 for his second presidential term, but the Clevelands fiercely protected their daughter’s privacy and refused repeated requests by American newspapers to take her photograph" and "By 1921, Babe Ruth was a household name while “Baby Ruth,” who died 17 years beforehand, was a historical footnote." Beccaynr (talk) 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But luckily a good photograph does exist and is used on the page. Her memory was still strong enough in the public's mind (which meets WP:20YT) that the candy bar was accepted as being named after her, and the candy company won the court case in 1931 when George Ruth belatedly made the claim that it was named after him, mainly because he wanted to sell his own candy bar. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quinn and Kanter and NYT Obit (references 1 and 2 as of now) are independent, RS, non-trivial coverage. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment refs added to idea of national sensation, one of which describes her birth as the "advent was that of a princess of being of royal the blood".
"Ruth Cleveland". The Missoulian. January 4, 1904. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers. com.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
"Babe Ruth". The Saint Paul Globe. November 20, 1891. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
"Baby Ruth and Baby M'ee". Pittsburgh Dispatch. November 13, 1891. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers. com.

Djflem (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also an interesting read, tho not useable as a ref:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27989/battle-babies-white-house-brawl
"America's Biggest Celebrity Baby Name? Baby Ruth". July 10, 2023.

Djflem (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Djflem (talk) 06:41, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruth_Cleveland&oldid=1171251521"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy