Ruth Mulan Chu Chao : Though the article itself appears fleshed out and well-sourced at first glance, taking some time to read through it, I call into question whether Ruth is notable per GNG.  More than half of the article pertains to her personal life, the events of which are not themselves notable.  The only other section, "Philanthropy", includes only buildings named after her posthumously, due to donations from her husband and daughters, including a building at the Harvard Business School.  There are 18 cited sources.  Of those, nine are from the HBS website.  Two are from the Foremost Group, an organization headed by her daughter Angela.  One is a news story covering Angela's death.  One is an obituary of her other daughter, Jeannette.  Two are Ruth's obituaries - one is clearly just a death announcement.  The other is called "Chao's mother mourned", explicitly defining her notability solely in relation to her daughter Elaine.  One source is just about Elaine's comments on the Green Line expansion, ten years after Ruth's death.  There is one source (#14) honoring Ruth (again, posthumously) and her husband as philanthropists, however this link is defunct.  In addition, the source appears to be a press release from the organization that gave them the award.  This is a nothing article.  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Some hits in Gbooks [11] , is the best.  The NBC News article is fine.  This [12] is in Chinese, but seems to be about her.  Should have GNG with these.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Google Books source you provided is not about Ruth.  It is about Elaine and Ruth is mentioned exactly once.  Being related to someone notable is not notable.  The NBC News article also  1. is about an event that happened multiple years after she died and  2. does not describe anything Ruth did that would be notable.  Having something named after you because your family member who loves you is rich is not notable.  If someone can translate the Chinese and use any of that information in the article I can be swayed, but the first two sources you gave aren't doing it for me.  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Follow-up, I went to the Amazon page for the book and translated the description from the original Chinese [13] .  It appears that this book was written because Elaine has said publicly "I really hope you have the opportunity to know my mother".  Other quotes from the description include "She may seem like an ordinary housewife, but she has extraordinary circumstances" and "An ordinary life can also have extraordinary power", which doesn't really bring me much hope that the book would have her meet GNG.  Also, a majority of the testimonials are immediate family members.  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women , Business , China ,  and New York .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 16:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It looks like the ILF source got rescued.  I took a look at it, and it still doesn't help the case IMO.  It claims that until Ruth's death, most of hers and her husband's philanthropic gifts were made anonymously.  Her husband only began giving in her name once she had died in 2007.  I guess my question here is: can you be made notable solely for someone else signing your name to monetary gifts after you die?  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Other sources do also exist, including this site of 17 slides and explanatory text , posted by the Baker Library of the Harvard Business School.  The first slide, now listed as an external link at the bottom of the article, includes pertinent quotations from Laura Bush, Sandra Day O'Connor and Hillary Clinton.  Another source: a book by Cui Jiarong, with the Amazon translation .  Meets GNG.  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Can we consider the Harvard Business School page to be an independent source, considering that this coverage is there only because the Chao family donated money for the building named for her?  Also, the book you linked is the same book I addressed in a previous reply.  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep .  Although it's not yet referenced in the article, the Chinese book found by User:Oaktree b appears to be a full biography of the late Madam Chao.  Although I don't have access to it, the author is a lecturer at a Taiwanese university and it was published by the books division of Commonwealth magazine, which we oddly don't have an article on, but is roughly Taiwan's equivalent to The Atlantic or The Economist .  That's exactly what we need for GNG, even though it's not ideal to only have a single source.  Matt's talk 17:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Bought the book, currently reading it by google translating each page and I will report back.  So far, the thesis appears to be "she raised strong daughters and after she died a building was named after her".  Which is admirable!  But I still don't get the impression that she is independently notable.  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have read 10% of the book so far.  A few quotes that stuck out to me: "[Chao] is a typical housewife who has always made the happiness of her husband and children her life's work. In her memory, she just did things silently to make her husband's life with her children a little more comfortable and easier." "On the surface all the deeds related to big people in the world cannot be found on her resume. However, this good wife and mother with high output value wholeheartedly assisted her soulmate Zhao Xicheng who became an internationally renowned Chinese ship king, and at the same time, cultivated six daughters with excellent character and professional excellence with gentle maternal love".  This just really comes off to me as a very touching memorial project for a deeply beloved, but low-profile, family member.  I don't think it confers notability, given the source itself basically says so.  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reminder: WP:BLUDGEONING is a form of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing.  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 18:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This is true.  That said, "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed."  Each of my responses has come after additional research into the topic, as I think folks here have raised valid points.  I apologize for a potentially brusque or overconfident tone.  Thesixthstaff ( talk ) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Your tone is fine.  But volume is an issue: See top editors .  — Grand'mere Eugene ( talk ) 19:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : This has a brief description of her life [14] .  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] it's really silly to delete a wikipedia article.  Sure, this isn't that necessary of an article but deleting this does not have any benefits what so ever.  Learning about this person is important and the goal of wikipedia is to spread information.  I really don't agree with deleting an article about a person who is still a bit important.  There are plenty of articles that should be deleted because they are about people who aren't notable, and deleting this is silly.  RevolutionaryWar ( talk ) 19:09, 16 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep