This person is often confused with others with similar names. This stub is useful for the disambiguation. (Also this person is noteworthy on her own, as her marriage created the connection between the Bush and Walker families. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — -talk)22:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance. The person's marriage forms the historically important connection between two powerful and influential families. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — -talk)23:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also:WP:BIAS since deletion shows implicit bias against women. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — -talk)23:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdsds: While having an article you wrote nominated for deletion can activate strong feelings, I would advise you toassume good faith on behalf ofDrdpw.

I suppose being the mother of a president is at least "significant", if not notable, soWP:AfD might be the appropriate venue, but I don't think the article in its current state has aWP:SNOWBALL chance of surviving anyway. PerWikipedia:Notability (people) § Invalid criteria, relationships do not confer notability.

If the Walker–Bush union is historically important, or Walker Bush's title as First Mother, arehistorically important then it should be possible to attribute that fact. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk)23:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply! While I certainly agree AGF is a key principle, this administrator apparently didn't even look to see allSpecial:WhatLinksHere/Dorothy Wear Walker Bush, which seems ... negligent. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — -talk)00:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please AGF in the future.Drdpw (talk)01:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My creation of this stub was done in good faith. While it's easy to see how discussion of its creation is appropriate, what motivates making that discussion speedy? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — -talk)05:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As context, my creation of this article was motivated by a fix I made here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Bush&diff=prev&oldid=1284816145 . Society's confusion about multiple people with similar names is not something our encyclopedia can directly fix. We can however work to minimize the contribution we make to that confusion! (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — -talk)05:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to drop this here too:Alliance theory is the anthropological basis for the claim that a "marriage-alliance" like this one (in which two families are effectively allied) is notable. Creating an article on the "Bush-Walker" alliance however? That might be a bit extreme. Simply mentioning it in this article is likely more effective in communicating the concept to readers. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — -talk)05:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My review of sources on this individual suggests that Dorothy Walker Bush meets WP:GNG, most substantially because of the title coverage in the first source here (1) and extended biographical detail in (2). Modest honors from Florian (naming her a "Great Floridian) and the American Red Cross (flying flags at half-staff in her honor) accompany her ceremonial role noted frequently in the press of being "First Mother" during George HW Bush's presidency.
  1. Taraborrelli, J. Randy (2021-03-02).Grace & Steel: Dorothy, Barbara, Laura, and the Women of the Bush Dynasty. St. Martin's Publishing Group.ISBN 978-1-250-24870-1.
  2. Meacham, Jon (2016-10-18).Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey of George Herbert Walker Bush. Random House Publishing Group.ISBN 978-0-8129-7947-3.
  3. Kelley, Kitty (2004-09-14).The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.ISBN 978-0-385-51405-7.
  4. Schweizer, Peter; Schweizer, Rochelle (2005-01-04).The Bushes. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.ISBN 978-1-4000-9636-7.
  5. Hays, Constance L. (1992-11-24)."Bush and Aides Attend Funeral For His Mother".The New York Times.ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved2025-04-10.
  6. "Dorothy Walker Bush Honored as a 'Great Floridian'".The New York Times. 2015-09-06.ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved2025-04-10.

Power isn't hereditary in the United States, but wealth and social visibility are. Books (e.g., 3 and 4) have been written about this political dynasty and I don't see why this node in that process shouldn't be noted and explored independently here on Wikipedia given her apparent notability.--Carwil (talk)18:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]