Deletion of Dorothy Howell Rodham

Comment: Is the subject of non-trivial secondary sources, the core criterion of  and .  Just because "notability is not inherited" doesn't mean notable people who are related to other notable people are magically non-notable.  Besides, the "not-inherited" clause does call for |common sense and in this case, being the parent of one of the most notable US Senators in history not to mention Secretary of State is easily one of those common sense exceptions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:BIO||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: You seem to have misread or misunderstood . Assuming good faith, I will not say you are misrepresenting it.  says  "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." My understanding of this is that for the former First Lady's Mom to have an article, she should have "done something significant and notable in (her) own right" such that she would merit an article even if her daughter and son in law weren't famous. She has only been covered because of her relatives, thus she fails this guideline. Come back when she does something other than be a mother, mother-in-law and grandmother. Maybe she will write a best-selling book or something, other than just be along for the ride. The failure to satisfy  is exactly the same as if she were a baby of a celebrity. The press coverage derives from the famous relatives, not from her actions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED||WP:INHERITED||WP:BIO)

Comment: Notability is not inherited, but there is enough here to satisfy  in her own right
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Although not a wikipedia policy or guideline, a reasonable test for this sort of "inherited" article, I think, is whether many users are likely to look up this individual seeking information about them.  Here the answer is, in my opinion, a strong yes....and I say this because I have previously looked up Mrs. Rodham myself on Wikipedia.  The  guideline is a good principle when addressing obscure figures (eg. we do not need an article on Judy Garland's grand-aunt), but this seems to be exactly the sort of situation for which  should not be imposed dogmatically
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED||WP:INHERITED)

Comment: A clerk-typist, homemaker and mother. The only references are due to who she is related to. Thus the appropriate place to mention her is in the relative's article. No independent notability. Fails . Notability does not spread to relatives of politicians
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: A few notes on  because it's being thrown around incorrectly here. '''1''' It's not policy, it's part of the arguments to avoid essay. So you can't just cite it and move on. '''2''' The  is talking ''primarily'' about child-parent ''articles'', not children people and parents people. At the end it talks about ''celebrities'', but it's a stretch to call the secretary of state a mere celebrity. '''3''' People are confusing importance or merit with notability. An individual may well be notable by association, without having done anything to deserve it on their own. WP:NOTABILITY is relevant here in the article space. That means the content needs to be limited to the things that make the individual notable. But none of those suggest deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

Comment: Notability is not inherited. Also, multiple  ''suggests'' notability, but does not ''confirm'' it. We have to use our judgment and common sense here. It doesn't appear that she has done anything other than raise a notable child. The article is well-sourced, yes, but she hasn't done anything that confers independent notability in my opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: She is notable by her mention in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)