Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim and Mary McCartney


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 01:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jim and Mary McCartney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think it is very clear that the context of the article in non-notable, we can't just say that the family of an influential figure is notable by itself. And yes, the article has GA status granted in 2007, but that doesn't have to affect the discussion on its notability, as the subject was never resolved. So, I think that the article's GA status should be cut off and the article deleted, because as I said, it lacks notability and interest. - Phill24th (talk). 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. If someone is really really famous, then their parents and other family members end up getting lots of attention from lots of sources.  In this case, plenty of Beatles biographies have gone into considerable detail about the members' parents, starting with the Hunter Davies bio in 1968.  So if all these books talk about McCartney's parents, then yes they become notable.  Whether their lives are of interest, as you also bring up, is a matter for individual readers to decide; no one if forced to read any article.   Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep If nothing else, it's eligible for keeping as a spin-out of Paul McCartney. It's common to break up long biographies into sections (e.g. Early life of Marilyn Monroe, Early life of George Gordon Byron and several other articles on the same pattern), and this is certainly an area of Paul's life that has received coverage in a lot of books. And even if the proposer isn't interested in the Beatles, I think the vast amount of books published about every aspect of their lives and careers indicates that a lot of people are. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 02:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - The article is well detailed and highly reference, which alone shows there is enough material on the subjects to make them notable. Notability isn't inherited no but it can then come to exist as a side product. JTdale   Talk 03:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per the others above; valid as a WP:SPINOUT of the Paul McCartney article. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 9 July 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.