Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Hutton (hairdresser)


 * 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. Notability is not inherited. WP:NRV is policy, and it states "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." (User:Barney the barney barney please take note of this for future discussions; User:Mabalu as well.) As such it is apparent that this article's subject has not attained the required independent notability. Therefore, there are no valid, policy-backed arguments for this articles inclusion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim Hutton (hairdresser)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Challenged PROD. Little claim to notability aside from his relationship with Freddie Mercury, unreferenced, and the majority of content is already present in the article on Mercury. Chris857 (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Undecided Everything I can find on Jim Hutton is directly linked to Mercury, and it's true that notability is not inherited. I don't see that Hutton has particular standalone notability, although he does have a large quantity of coverage because of his links with Mercury. Personally speaking I wouldn't have rushed to nominate for deletion - he's pretty much just as notable as Larry Fortensky, probably even more so because of having written a book about his and Freddie's relationship and figuring largely in the biographies. This is a tough one. Really dithering back and forth here, between weak delete and weak keep. I think I am JUST fractionally leaning keep, but it's 49:51. Mabalu (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment re: WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY and we have several articles on partners/spouses of prominent people from Shakespeare to Ringo Starr.  People can be primarily known for being related to someone else.  In this case, WP:BLP doesn't apply.  There is I think an obsession with Wikipedia article being a "reward" for personal achievement, when actually all we need is coverage.   The question I want to know is is he, including his relationship with Mercury, of serious academic interest?  I think probably.  I would also rename the article from Jim Hutton (hairdresser) to Jim Hutton (partner of Freddie Mercury) to identify what he is primarily notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If it is indeed not policy that notability cannot be inherited (good to know!), then I'd say that it seems perfectly reasonable that this article should exist. He has certainly had plenty of coverage on him as an individual, even if it is all linked to Mercury for the most par. And yes, people would want to know a bit more about Freddie's partner, especially as that man wrote a book himself and received quite a lot of coverage on him as a person - I mean, if someone gets an article for absolutely no other reason than being hitched to Liz Taylor, then this article is even more worth keeping. So, yes, I'm swayed. I'm voting keep. Mabalu (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment as nominator: When I did a cursory search for sources on Mr. Hutton, I was finding sources, but they didn't seem to be of sufficient quality or reliability to determine this individual's notability. I'm willing to be swayed, but I'm not swayed yet. Chris857 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge selectively to Freddie Mercury. Notability is not inherited: in this case by a partner.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As was pointed out to me above, the argument WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY... And a further comment - I have absolutely no objection to a merge. Certainly, apart from Fortensky (who is very definitely WAY less notable, but I bet he'd be snow keep if brought to AFD), all the other notable spouses/partners I could think of such as Anne Hathaway & David Furnish have had substantial scrutiny and consideration; or evidence of sufficent notability beyond the partnership. I looked up two other notorious serial marriers, Zsa Zsa Gabor and Mickey Rooney, and not all their ex-spouses have articles. So yes, whilst I agree there's little really strong argument to keep, I do think Hutton HAS had quite a lot of scrutiny and consideration through his Mercury links. Mabalu (talk) 13:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I hit Submit, I suddenly thought of Elton John's ex-wife, Renate Blauel - who DOES have an article, but is just as equally weak a notability case as Jim Hutton. Mabalu (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2014 (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.