Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara McKenzie-Smith


 * 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 delete.  Jay  (Reply)  16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Barbara McKenzie-Smith

 * -- (View AfD)

This artist does not seem notable and seems mainly to have been included because she is the mother of a Wikipedian Jpaulm. This user is also the sole editor of the page (excluding additional tags). Nobody23 14:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep She was the wife of a notable British writer, John Rodker, and was very involved in the Bloomsbury Group, and a good friend of Trekkie Parsons, Leonard Woolf's lover. She was also an accomplished artist in her own right, although I agree that nobody has written a biography of her (yet). *Joan Rodker papers Jpaulm 17:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that defense is kind of ridiculous, Jpaulm. People don't get put on wikipedia because someone they know is famous. I'm sure there are thousands of people out there who are spouses of, friends of, or acquaintaces of, famous people. That doesn't make them notable in their own right. Google search of "Barbara Mckenzie-smith" returns 18 hits, and I think all of them are just copies of this wikipedia article.
 * Even supposing that her fame "by association" was justification for it's own article (I don't believe it is), We'd need evidence for all of these relationships from an actual external source. But it's irrelevant, because just because I might happen to be the husband of a barely notable radio personality, the friend of Leonard Nimoy, and a very active member of greenpeace, doesn't mean I'm notable. I could work all day in an artist's association, marry or befriend all the famous people I want, but it wouldn't necessarily make me of any interest. - Monk of the highest order (t) 19:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. The main claim is that she was "associated with the Bloomsbury Group". The only sources apparently out there which state that are Wikipedia and its mirrors . The existing mention in her husband's article is fine of course.Bwithh 19:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not associative. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to John Rodker. Redirects are cheap. -- Bpmullins | Talk 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yawn I mean Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Ohconfucius 07:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll replace it with a Redirect. Do I wait for the vote, or should I go ahead? Jpaulm 15:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * May I note to whoever replies to this: this user is reasonably new to Wikipedia; don't bite the newbies. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Review me!) 18:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Monk's well reasoned argument. Redirect is inappropriate (unlikely search term since this person does not seem to be famous).  Zun aid  © Please rate me at Editor Review!  15:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree, User:Zunaid, not even a redirect! Jpaulm 18:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.