Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Garland's ancestry


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Judy Garland's ancestry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

non-notable, original research. While Garland herself is notable, there has been little-to-no work in English, in reliable sources, that has taken any interest in her genealogy. The ancestry portion, when referenced, is only documenting generic facts about specific ancestors, and not the connection to Garland, and the synthesis and application of this to Garland would be OR by SYNTH. The self-identification portion might have salvageable material for the main Judy Garland page, but does not merit a page of its own. Agricolae (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Agricolae (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not inherited. If a person's ancestry is the subject of feverish debate in reputable sources (sort of like the whole "was Jesus Christ black" thing), that's one thing - but I see nothing particularly notable about Ms. Garland's ancestry that cannot adequately be covered in the "early life" section of the actress's article. "Judy Garland was born on &lt;date&gt; to &lt;father.name&gt; and &lt;mother.name&gt;, both of whose familial lines can be traced back to the Mayflower &lt;source&gt;". There, everything worthy of mention is covered, without going into tedious, painstaking, pedantic genological detail as to her seventh cousin five times removed on her maternal grandmother's side. This is an encyclopedia, not a city hall. Badger Drink (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Judy Garland. The information is interesting enough, but not WP:Notable for its own article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this is an encyclopedia, not a genealogy reference. Dlabtot (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Her ancestry is not what made Judy Garland notable. Therefore her ancestry is NN.  A few sentences might be added to her article as to her background (even with an external link as reference).  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that while random articles on the ancestry of celebrities don't belong in Wikipedia, Judy Garland's has--for reasons entirely unclear to me--become a focus of scholars, fans, etc.  Clarke, her leading biographer, for example, devotes an extraordinary amoung of time to her geneaology.  An entire microindustry has developed around the alleged sexual orientation of her father, as well.  I'm not certain that means this merits it's own article, but I do think that the unusual nature of and interest in this particular genealogy should at least be commented upon before we close this debate  Vartanza (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a quick look at Clarke (or at least what I could see on Amazon), and I see no such extraordinary focus. He simply sets the stage, providing a brief context for his more extensive discussion of the immediate family - parents, aunts and uncles, and all in about one page out of 500. This is typical of most biographies. Yes, there is a school of genealogical hobbyists that trace all of the connections of anyone and everyone famous, resulting in such irrelevant nonsense as famous person X and famous person Y are 17th cousins three times removed, but there is nothing noteworthy or particularly reliable about such pursuits that merit a page. Agricolae (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED. Warrah (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per kitfoxxe.Red Hurley (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2010 (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.