Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Fortensky


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Larry Fortensky

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Following an interesting AFD for Freddie Mercury's boyfriend which was closed as delete, I came to the conclusion that if it was deleted, I would raise this one for discussion. Fortensky is only notable for his links to Liz Taylor and not for any other reasons - he has no independent notability beyond having been married to Taylor, and the material in the article that is NOT related to the Taylor marriage is trivial stuff that only drew attention because of his role as Former Mr Liz Taylor. We do not have articles for everyone Zsa Zsa Gabor or Mickey Rooney has been married to, so I don't see how Fortensky is notable enough simply for being a celebrity spouse - he has done nothing else to show standalone notability. Mabalu (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - this can be distinguished. Fortensky has popped up in the news from time to time since Taylor's death, while Hutton has not. Fortensky had a very public and messy marriage with Taylor, but Hutton was in Mercury's closet. Fortensky has been a celebrity in his own right (even if unearned) but, as one editor wrote in that AfD, "Everything ... on Jim Hutton is directly linked to Mercury."  A same-sex partner can be notable in his or her own right (see David Furnish and Tam O'Shaughnessy), so sexual orientation doesn't matter. The nomination creates a false equivilency where none exists. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the reasons why Fortensky has popped up in the news are trivial. Former Mr. Liz Taylor falls down some stairs. He buys a house which is then repossessed. He is living in rented accommodation. Is any of this even noteworthy? I really don't see why. The false equivalency argument is nonsensical - Hutton has and will receive way more focus and examination in Mercury biographies than Fortensky appears to have, or will probably ever receive, in Taylor biographies. Mabalu (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mabalu, you may have a point. Can you point to specific sources? Bearian (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Our decision here should not be based on whether he DESERVES notability, but whether he HAS notability. In fact he has received lots of significant coverage from reliable sources over the years. You and I may think he's not worthy of that notice, but that's a value judgment and inappropriate. The coverage is there, and recent coverage is about HIM and not just about Taylor, so it's not a case of WP:INHERIT. By Wikipedia standards he is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per other keeps. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:27, 25 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.