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. Vanamonde ( Talk) 23:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ruth Cleveland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The content in it is already covered at Grover Cleveland#Marriage and children and Baby Ruth#Etymology. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 03:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete As per the nomination, the article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Furthermore, the info in the article is also covered on the Grover Cleveland page, as per the nom. Just because you were birthed by a president doesn't mean you deserve your own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IncompA ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• New !vote below — siro χ o 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Grover Cleveland § Marriage and children per WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:ATD-R — siro χ o 03:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This child was much more than just a child of a president. Please note "Her birth between Cleveland's two terms of office caused a national sensation. Interest in her continued even after her father's second presidential term was over.", and then her tragic death at a yound age threw many into mourning. Her life, as a topic, stands alone encyclopedically apart from her historical societal effect. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. Shellwood ( talk) 11:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep, a prominent individual in two areas of interest, United States presidential children and namesakes of famous products. Baby Ruth was of considerable interest for years, and was a beloved and publicly popular personage who was greatly mourned at her death. This seems one of those cases where the passage of time applies ignorance of the era, an aspect of human nature which should not spill over into encyclopedic knowledge. Randy Kryn ( talk) 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge I'd suggest a new Family of Grover Cleveland page for this as well as Marion Cleveland, Esther Cleveland and Francis Cleveland. We don't even have articles on Malia Obama or Barron Trump. Being a "sensation" obviously is because she was "just a child of a president". Of couse people mourn when the president's young child dies, but a separate article is not necessarily needed to say that in a few sentences. The Snopes source indicates she was not actually the namesake of the famous product anyway. Reywas92 ^Talk 16:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  That new article sounds like a good idea, I would support such a merge as well. — siro χ o 21:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

A family page could be written without removing the pages, such as this one and those which easily make GNC. If you'd like a page on Malia Obama please write it (Barron Trump is not old enough for a stand-alone page as yet) but let's not throw out Baby Ruth with the bathwater. Plus, if Wikipedia had been invented in 1911 instead of 2001, a page on Ruth Cleveland would have been posted and easily kept, so this seems a case of time-bias. Encyclopedia's should have long memories and not let time erode. Randy Kryn ( talk) 10:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

^{citation needed} Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 07:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ANYBIO. It's a sad story, but the dearth of sources reflects the fact that 12 year old children rarely achieve enough to garner the kind of coverage we require. Not just in newspaper coverage of the time but in subsequent, in-depth scholarship. SN54129 13:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Delete, Keep, Redirect, Merge, there is no consensus here. And remember, an article has to exist before an article can be Merged into it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to the candy bar with the same name, that seems to be what her "notability" hangs on. She didn't accomplish much notability-wise, but was seemingly the reason the candy bar was named, in a not-so-obvious attempt to cash in on the baseball player's name. Had they not invented the candy bar, we wouldn't be talking about her. Oaktree b ( talk) 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

She's notable for being the namesake of a famous candy bar and also as the daughter of a U.S. president because, on its face ( prima facie), she was notable enough at the time to be the namesake of a famous candy bar, making her notable indeed. I'd think being notable for two things would keep this page. Reading your comment inspired me to add her photograph to the Baby Ruth page, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Randy Kryn and WP:IMPACT (what he seems to be alluding to), though admittedly we're likely in WP:PERMA territory with this one. Also WP:10YT, as this subject's notability has stood the test of time. 2601:204:C901:B740:44F8:98CE:740E:7179 ( talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Blablubbs ( talk) 22:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  At least to 2012 (even if they got it wrong):

  Waxman, Olivia B (July 4, 2012). "Happy Birthday to America—and her First Daughters". TIME. Retrieved August 15, 2023. Djflem ( talk) 13:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  And 1984: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1984/06/16/009796.html?pageNumber=22 Djflem ( talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  The NYT piece is a letter to the editor and not reliable. The Time article speaks to the notability of first daughters generally; two sentences in a listicle is not WP:SIGCOV. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Was in response to this: https://www.nytimes.com/1984/05/28/style/correction-222816.html, but that point about the candy name has been covered elsewhere.... Djflem ( talk) 19:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment Coverage in the New York Times, whilst society page stuff (3 articles), confers some notability. An obituary in it, (added to article) definitely does:
• "Ruth Cleveland Dead" (PDF). The New York Times. January 8, 1904. Retrieved August 15, 2023.
• "Ruth Cleveland Buried" (PDF). The New York Times. September 9, 1904. Retrieved August 13, 2023.
• 1892: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1892/10/03/106086591.html?pageNumber=1
• 1897: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1897/04/03/101102770.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0
• 1899: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1899/12/03/100459721.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0

Djflem ( talk) 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Djflem ( talk) 15:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• • I agree that an obituary is significant, but the three very short tabloidy articles don't contribute. (E.g. getting a pony and a dogcart from a family friend doesn't speak to Ruth's notability.) Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • But having a major national newspaper talk about that & other little details speaks to the nation's rapture. Djflem ( talk) 16:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      • @ Djflem: "Speaks to" is original research; it's not the same thing as "a historian said", and no one here has quoted a source that speaks to such feelings... can you link to the three best sources that meet each point laid out at WP:GNG? I'm particularly looking for significant coverage that avoids WP:BIOFAMILY problems (and WP:BIO1E around her untimely death). The NYT obituary is one, but the overall lack of those sources is why I nominated this article for deletion in the first place. The subject could be covered at about the same level of detail in Grover Cleveland or a new "Family of Grover Cleveland" article, with additional content at Baby Ruth. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 02:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

        A more thorough Wikipedia:BEFORE may have revealed the sources you seek. (see below). While the subject could be covered in another article,including a non-existent [[Family of Grover Cleveland (currently a redirect), there appears to more than sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG, making that unnecessary. Djflem ( talk) 11:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment Rather cheesy to delink the article in Grover Cleveland page, while there is an article, as the nominator of this AdF has done. Djflem ( talk) 13:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Djflem: Let's AGF here, please. I did that after redirecting this article, which was reverted per the WP:BRD cycle. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 15:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

That's the point I've been making. Please stop just going in and erasing articles on your own without discussion of any kind, especially U.S. presidential relative pages (or any pages which even have a snowball's chance at the North Pole of being kept). You may have did those in good faith, and hopefully no more, but yes, Ruth Cleveland is an example of why it's never a good idea to do that for sourced or historically-connected pages. Randy Kryn ( talk) 15:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your desire to create a better encyclopedia. Please recognize that's why we are all WP:HERE. I must say I do not agree that it is never a good idea to be bold in editing any set of articles, that notion is not in the spirit of pillars 3, 4 and 5. Good faith WP:BOLD edits are fine, and good faith reverts are fine. And indeed, a good discussion is taking place right here. — siro χ o 16:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

An oversight, perhaps, but it would have been better if the link had been restored after the BRD cycle, especially since a bluelink to the existing article might have led to this discussion. Djflem ( talk) 19:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a fair sentiment, and I'm glad it was noticed before the close of the discussion, even if there are no deadlines. Thanks for restoring the link. — siro χ o 21:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• There is no one page to merge this to. Ruth Cleveland is notable and topic-important in three ways. She's the namesake of one of the most successful candy bars in history, which would be the most likely merge target...at least to some editors. But she's also a president's daughter who was herself famous and notable enough to have a notable candy bar named for her many years after her death and her father's presidency. She is literally alluded to on Wikipedia's main page in today's feature article summary (and linked at least twice in the text of the feature article about her mother, which is a main reason I'm leaving this comment). Then, even if a page was written about her extended family, her stand-alone page would still make her notable as, and I'll repeat, the namesake of one of the most successful and oldest candy bars in history. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • And hold the presses, have brought over two book references from the Francis Cleveland page, where they were hiding in plain sight. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Randy Kryn, please stop making unsupported assertions of notability without any sources to back up your position. I'll repeat what I said to someone else above: can you link to the three best sources that meet each point laid out at WP:GNG and avoid WP:BIOFAMILY? That's the only thing that matters with regards to keeping or deleting this article. Just list sources so we can stop this circular argument. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 04:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Unsupported assertions of notability? The Baby Ruth candy bar is named for her, and that ain't beanbag. She's the popular daughter of a president and grew up in the White House. WP:COMMONSENSE already assures her notability even before the sources are looked at which, by the way, are in the article already all laid out for you. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Randy Kryn, that's not how Wikipedia works. Notability requires verifiable evidence. Please read User:RoySmith/Three best sources for why I'm asking for three sources. Just three. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 04:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        • Thanks for fixing the two book sources which had been just added to the article (I'd messed up on the coding and copy-and-paste). The Ruth Cleveland page, and I would think the candy bar page, contain adequate sourcing, I'm not going to repeat them here but thanks for the request. There are also several fine sources above. Please memorize WP:COMMONSENSE, it's worth its weight in gold bytes. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        • I've just added another major source, brought over from the "Baby Ruth" article, where there are probably more but the page has enough references for the candy bar name and its interesting backstory. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment - this History source Babe Ruth or Baby Ruth: Who Was the Candy Bar Named After? notes "Newspapers and the American public paid close attention to “Baby Ruth” after her father returned to the White House in 1893 for his second presidential term, but the Clevelands fiercely protected their daughter’s privacy and refused repeated requests by American newspapers to take her photograph" and "By 1921, Babe Ruth was a household name while “Baby Ruth,” who died 17 years beforehand, was a historical footnote." Beccaynr ( talk) 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• But luckily a good photograph does exist and is used on the page. Her memory was still strong enough in the public's mind (which meets WP:20YT) that the candy bar was accepted as being named after her, and the candy company won the court case in 1931 when George Ruth belatedly made the claim that it was named after him, mainly because he wanted to sell his own candy bar. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep Quinn and Kanter and NYT Obit (references 1 and 2 as of now) are independent, RS, non-trivial coverage. GNG is met. Jclemens ( talk) 05:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment refs added to idea of national sensation, one of which describes her birth as the "advent was that of a princess of being of royal the blood".

"Ruth Cleveland". The Missoulian. January 4, 1904. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers. com.

"Babe Ruth". The Saint Paul Globe. November 20, 1891. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

"Baby Ruth and Baby M'ee". Pittsburgh Dispatch. November 13, 1891. Retrieved August 15, 2023 – via Newspapers. com.

Djflem ( talk) 12:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Djflem ( talk) 11:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Also an interesting read, tho not useable as a ref:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27989/battle-babies-white-house-brawl

"America's Biggest Celebrity Baby Name? Baby Ruth". July 10, 2023.

Djflem ( talk) 12:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Djflem ( talk) 06:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep and WP:Trout the nominator for complete lack of WP:Before research, which would quickly show that Ruth Cleveland's birth and brief life was a major news event with political impact and concomitant media coverage. The sources are clearly available to show notability at the time and sustained attention (although that's not neccesary, because notability is permanent.) The misinterpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED that would have us delete this article is not quite as bad as saying we should delete Archduke Franz Ferdinand on that basis, but it's close. Jahaza ( talk) 17:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• (Struck prior redirect !vote above) Weak keep per WP:HEY. The sourcing is improved, and the content of the article demonstrates that. I think WP:BASIC will be readily met in time, given the era, though it's borderline at the current moment. If it remains borderline, I believe, as Reywas92 suggested above, that a new article on the Family of Grover Cleveland would be a good alternative to consider as an editorial decision. — siro χ o 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Articke quality looks ok, sources are good. Within WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 19:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep Satisfies Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:SIGCOV Djflem ( talk) 22:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Keep The references now in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Tad Lincoln, Edward Baker Lincoln, William Wallace Lincoln and Patrick Bouvier Kennedy are all examples of children of US presidents who died as children, or as a 39 hour old infant in the case of Kennedy. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:54, 18 August 2023 (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.