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.
Wait. !vote at conclusion of this thought-process edit. I looked at the page, then at the page history, and I'm trying to figure out why a wikipedia page on a "nobody" gets hundreds of hits every day. So, the answer seems to be that a lot of people care about Lincoln's descendants - and about the fact that there are none. In addition to that
New Yorker article, Here is a 1994 article in the
Chicago Tribune[1]. And one form the
Los Angeles Times[2] about the deaths of Beckwith and her siblings - non of whom had offspring, leaving Abe and Mary without descendants.
Next, I ran a Proquest news archives search. This usual standard is that an obit in a major daily signifies notability, multiple obits and it's a slam dunk. Our Mary got obits in multiple, major, big-city dailies when she died. Her son,
Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, got obits nationwide when he died without issue. The
Philadelphia Inquirer obit was brief, and actually stated "Charles Bristow of the Bristow-Faulkner Funeral Home said he knew little about Mr. Beckwith, except that he was descended from the Civil War president. Records showed he had been married three times but was childless." that is what people cared about. He got obits nationwide, and also in the
Montreal Gazette and other Canadian papers. Years earlier, when his sister, Doris Beckwith got married, it was national news. All the descendants were news, but especially towards the end, whenever one died without descendants. Americans care that Lincoln, like Washington, has no living descendants. Dunno why; we just care. And so there are news media, books, reliable institutional websites that cover this woman with copious sourcing to pass
WP:GNG.
We do know some things about her, she "excelled at golf and smoked fine cigars, told a newspaper reporter she thought the federal government was pushing integration too aggressively." That story ran in 1963 in the
Indianapolis Star[3]], and it was snarky. But the thing is, in 1963 newspapers nationwide carried stories about her set-to (presumably on twitter, maybe Facebook) with
Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General in the the Kennedy administration over racial integration (the Kennedy boys liked it, she didn't). Unlike the snark from the Philadelphia paper, the ones I clicked on were straight stories about her opposition to integration. But the point here is that an elderly lady in New England had the ear of the nation because her maiden name was Lincoln.
I could go on, but the point is that at a certain point, coverage is so massive, so extensive, sustained for so many decades that it passes
WP:GNG. As for the idea that
WP:INHERIT states otherwise, it does, except when it doesn't, as per
WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." A clause that reads as though it was written to fit this case. Strong Keep.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that keeping is in accord with
WP:INHERIT provision for individuals whose fame derives solely from a close personal connection to a notable individual when, as here, coverage is extensive, deep, etc.
WP:GNG.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
05:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strongest possible KEEP: We have a serious problem that this article is even nominated. The descendants of Lincoln, now all passed on, are of immense interest to historians-- both who and why. E.M.Gregory does a good job of outlining the basic policy and guidelines involved, but I have to note that the very nomination smacks of "recentism" and historical ignorance of the highest degree. I find it unbelievable that someone could be so profoundly ignorant to nominate this article at all ... SMH...
Montanabw(talk)23:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I think Montanabw and E.M.Gregory have made their case. As a frequent editor of Lincoln related articles I have learned something new and find it interesting.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk)
00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Clearly meets GNG requirements of significant coverage, over time, in reliable independent sources. GNG does not require that anyone have extraordinary accomplishments, and as E.M. Gregory, Megalibrarygirl and others have pointed out, coverage is extensive and continues for decades.
SusunW (
talk)
15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
References
References
^Morris, P. (2007). The Scandalous Elopement of Abraham Lincoln's Granddaughter and Minor League Pitcher Warren Beckwith. Base Ball. 3(2), 21. Chicago.
^Emerson, J. (2009). The Madness of Mary Lincoln. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale.
^King, C. J. (2005). Four Marys and a Jessie: the story of the Lincoln women. Hildene, Inc.
^(1930). The Lincoln Grandchildren: Mary Lincoln Beckwith. Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection.
^Lachman, C. (2008). The Last Lincolns: The Rise & Fall of a Great American Family. Union Square Press.
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.
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.
Wait. !vote at conclusion of this thought-process edit. I looked at the page, then at the page history, and I'm trying to figure out why a wikipedia page on a "nobody" gets hundreds of hits every day. So, the answer seems to be that a lot of people care about Lincoln's descendants - and about the fact that there are none. In addition to that
New Yorker article, Here is a 1994 article in the
Chicago Tribune[1]. And one form the
Los Angeles Times[2] about the deaths of Beckwith and her siblings - non of whom had offspring, leaving Abe and Mary without descendants.
Next, I ran a Proquest news archives search. This usual standard is that an obit in a major daily signifies notability, multiple obits and it's a slam dunk. Our Mary got obits in multiple, major, big-city dailies when she died. Her son,
Robert Todd Lincoln Beckwith, got obits nationwide when he died without issue. The
Philadelphia Inquirer obit was brief, and actually stated "Charles Bristow of the Bristow-Faulkner Funeral Home said he knew little about Mr. Beckwith, except that he was descended from the Civil War president. Records showed he had been married three times but was childless." that is what people cared about. He got obits nationwide, and also in the
Montreal Gazette and other Canadian papers. Years earlier, when his sister, Doris Beckwith got married, it was national news. All the descendants were news, but especially towards the end, whenever one died without descendants. Americans care that Lincoln, like Washington, has no living descendants. Dunno why; we just care. And so there are news media, books, reliable institutional websites that cover this woman with copious sourcing to pass
WP:GNG.
We do know some things about her, she "excelled at golf and smoked fine cigars, told a newspaper reporter she thought the federal government was pushing integration too aggressively." That story ran in 1963 in the
Indianapolis Star[3]], and it was snarky. But the thing is, in 1963 newspapers nationwide carried stories about her set-to (presumably on twitter, maybe Facebook) with
Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General in the the Kennedy administration over racial integration (the Kennedy boys liked it, she didn't). Unlike the snark from the Philadelphia paper, the ones I clicked on were straight stories about her opposition to integration. But the point here is that an elderly lady in New England had the ear of the nation because her maiden name was Lincoln.
I could go on, but the point is that at a certain point, coverage is so massive, so extensive, sustained for so many decades that it passes
WP:GNG. As for the idea that
WP:INHERIT states otherwise, it does, except when it doesn't, as per
WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." A clause that reads as though it was written to fit this case. Strong Keep.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that keeping is in accord with
WP:INHERIT provision for individuals whose fame derives solely from a close personal connection to a notable individual when, as here, coverage is extensive, deep, etc.
WP:GNG.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
05:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strongest possible KEEP: We have a serious problem that this article is even nominated. The descendants of Lincoln, now all passed on, are of immense interest to historians-- both who and why. E.M.Gregory does a good job of outlining the basic policy and guidelines involved, but I have to note that the very nomination smacks of "recentism" and historical ignorance of the highest degree. I find it unbelievable that someone could be so profoundly ignorant to nominate this article at all ... SMH...
Montanabw(talk)23:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I think Montanabw and E.M.Gregory have made their case. As a frequent editor of Lincoln related articles I have learned something new and find it interesting.
Tom (North Shoreman) (
talk)
00:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Clearly meets GNG requirements of significant coverage, over time, in reliable independent sources. GNG does not require that anyone have extraordinary accomplishments, and as E.M. Gregory, Megalibrarygirl and others have pointed out, coverage is extensive and continues for decades.
SusunW (
talk)
15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)reply
References
References
^Morris, P. (2007). The Scandalous Elopement of Abraham Lincoln's Granddaughter and Minor League Pitcher Warren Beckwith. Base Ball. 3(2), 21. Chicago.
^Emerson, J. (2009). The Madness of Mary Lincoln. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale.
^King, C. J. (2005). Four Marys and a Jessie: the story of the Lincoln women. Hildene, Inc.
^(1930). The Lincoln Grandchildren: Mary Lincoln Beckwith. Lincoln Financial Foundation Collection.
^Lachman, C. (2008). The Last Lincolns: The Rise & Fall of a Great American Family. Union Square Press.
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.