Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Thorne

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. A consensus to Keep post addition of new RS form Megalibrarygirl, that went unchallenged by Deletes after two re-lists, and was upheld. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Thorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inadequately sourced biography of a person whose only stated claim of notability is who she happens to have been married to. "Second Lady" of a US state is not an "inherently" notable role -- note that neither her predecessor nor her successor have Wikipedia articles at all -- and she and John Kerry had divorced by the time John was a national figure, so the fact that he went on to serve as a US senator and Secretary of State, and unsuccessfully run for president, does not confer an automatic notability freebie on the ex-wife he wasn't even married to anymore.
The article also states that she wrote two books, but fails to source that to the kind of coverage about the books that it would take to get her over our notability standards for writers.
And the sourcing present here is not enough to get her over the "notable because sources exist" bar, either: between the single footnote and the linkfarmed external links, there's a piece of "so what do you think about the fact that your ex-husband is running for president?" human interest journalism in a local interest magazine, a short blurb about the availability of her husband's divorce records (which speaks to his notability, not hers), an obituary, and two user-generated family trees self-published by members of her own extended family -- which means two of these five links are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all, and the three that are real media don't add up to enough media coverage to get her over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to have her own independent notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being married to a prominent politician early on before they are nationally prominent does not make one notable. I would even argue for the deletion of the article on Donald Trump's first wife, except for the fact that he was nationally promient when she was his wife, and some of the ways he is referred to are heavily shaped by her statements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did some serious cleanup and found several news sources about Thorne which I added to her article. Her obituary was very large and carried in many different, large metropolitan newspapers, indicating that she's a notable person, for one thing! In addition, she comes from a large, wealthy family with historic ties. She was a socialite, which you can see from the 1970 article. She did receive recognition for her first book which led to two articles about that work. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - coverage, both during her life and in nationally-distributed obituaries, shows significant coverage. Her notability was gained beyond her relationship with the politician. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage is what counts here and there is a lot of it, on three continents. As the article grows there will be more and more sources surfacing. scope_creep^Talk 12:21, 5 November 2019 (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.