Marion Hepburn: WP:GNG seems to be failed here.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Connecticut .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in many books and periodicals.  Amongst other coverage, she actually has an obituary in the New York Times [31] .  There is also one in United Press International [32] and there are book reviews [33] [34] and other coverage of her books [35] , amongst other coverage.  James500 ( talk ) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I understand your concerns, and saw this as well.  My concern here is that I'm not sure a single notable source covering one notable event of her life is enough to satisfy WP:GNG , particularly with respect to WP:BIO1E .  I will grant that NYT is a very notable source, but I think more sources would be needed here.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I said "amongst other coverage".  I have just added some additional items, and I could add even more.  An obituary is a biography, not coverage of the event of a person's death, so BIO1E is not applicable.  The obituary is not purely about her death, its also about her career as a historian and author, and her activist activities.  I have never heard of a person with an NYT obituary being deleted, and I am under the impression that the community generally regard it as being overwhelming evidence of notability.  James500 ( talk ) 20:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are quite a few people with NYT obits not considered a good way of establishing notability beyond the death itself (see WP:OBITUARIES ).  The remaining books you cite seem to be tangential coverage, hence, not good for establishing notability.  As for the WP:REDACT violation, I will WP:AGF , and WP:MUTUAL it.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am alarmed to see you  edit a comment after someone has already responded to it, which violates WP:REDACT .  Please put your changes below as a reply to the comment.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am alarmed to see an account with less than 970 edits, mostly made in a sudden recent burst, that has just nominated a person with an NYT obituary for deletion, badgering my ! vote, and then wikilawyering , in an attempt to prevent me from adding additional sources.  What you are asking me to do would make my ! vote incomprehensible to the closing admin.  James500 ( talk ) 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi, I just want to be clear here that I wasn't assuming you were acting in bad faith here, I was merely concerned about the clarity of the discussion.  (It generally makes sense in these cases for somebody to just say "hey I found some sources here" below to reinforce your point above rather than pre-address the comments be editing your vote, which can be quite confusing for people reading the discussion.)  I was merely making a good faith request here, and apologize if it seemed like I was casting WP:ASPERSIONS .  That being said, please refrain from doing the same to me.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I am perfectly happy to WP:MUTUAL the whole thing.  I accept that you were not trying to upset me, and I promise I was not trying to upset you either.  No hard feelings?  James500 ( talk ) 21:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] None whatsoever here, and I appreciate your feedback on this AfD, even if I may disagree with it.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG .  In addition to the NYT and UPI obituaries, here's a front-page one from the Hartford Courant : [36] , [37] .  A 1981 profile: [38] .  She was making headlines for her writerly ambitions as a teenager: [39] .  Jfire ( talk ) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Good find on [8]!  Could you add it to the article?  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep because of the obituaries identified in this discussion.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I in general have problems with the use of obituaries as sources (see WP:OBITUARIES ).  However, I think sources [8] and [9] provided by User:Jfire are quite compelling, and I want to thank him for doing the digging here.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 17:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the comments here, this looks to be a solid Keep.  Go4thProsper ( talk ) 14:34, 6 April 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