Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxwell Burns


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Maxwell Burns

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non notable member of a notable family: he died when he was less than 3 years old, and as his his father was dead by the time he was born, it isn't as if he was the inspiration for notable works either. Probably some of the other articles about family members need to be looked at as well (e.g. Elizabeth Riddell Burns). Suggestions for the best redirect target are welcome. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even remotely close to being notable. Notability is not inherited, and the less than 3 year old son of a writer who was born after his writer father died is in no way going to make any passing of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom and failure to meet WP:GNG due to the lack of WP:SIGCOV focusing in depth on the life of Maxwell Burns. Entries in genealogical databases don't cut it. Nor do the father's letters about the impending birth. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Shame on you :-) We are approaching Burns Night and you are objecting to research on Scotland's most famous person! The article brings together in one place all the admittedly scant details and links regarding a child whose impending birth was of such concern that a dying man wrote his last ever letter regarding it. Wikipedia policies are surely more flexible than you imply? Rosser Gruffydd
 * Keep(here or with full current entry retained in the redirect entry). Certainly don't delete or submerge in another entry (say a portmanteau entry on Burns's children) till there is more discussion of how people will find the William Maxwell Burns entry, and whether the research gathered in the current entry will remain fully available. If not noteable in himself, he is noteworthy in the sense that people using wikipedia for Burns topics want to be able easily to locate accurate information on any of Burns's children, and this entry assembles perhaps the fullest body of information and references anywhere (at least on the web). There is an issue for Wikipedia in having independent entries for people of this kind, where we know people want to find good information easily, not through multiple redirects; one test of notabilty or the viability of separate entries might be whether they rated an entry in the print Burns Encyclopaedias over the years. Patrick Scott, author, Robert Burns: A Documentary Volume (2018), etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greigscott (talk • contribs) 21:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing that he gets one line in the Burns encyclopedia, that's hardly an argument to keep this. If even highly, highly specialised encyclopedias don't give much attention to the subject, then it is not the place of Wikipedia to go further. Most of the article is fluff, a lot of text to hide that there is very little to say about Maxwell Burns: highly surprising for someone who died before they were three years old of course. It's hard to see why "people using Wikipedia for Bruns topics" would want to know anything beyond what the Burns Encyclopedia has to say. Similarly, for other famous persons, we don't reproduce every scrap of info that can be found in e.g. a book-length biography, but we summarize the important points. And Maxwell Burns is not an important point in the life and career of Robert Burns, he is a footnote, worth a mention, not an article. Fram (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When you are in a hole stop digging. You are now adding your personal opinion as insults to a lack of appreciation of a Scottish icon. I take it that you wouldn't mind the Scottish press reading your considered opinion? Take a day off to think your comments through as I find that helps. Rosser Gruffydd 10:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Maxwell Burns was a Scottish icon, nor that I said anything wrong about Robert Burns? Feel free to inform the Scottish press about this AfD though, I would be thoroughly amazed if any of them would care one bit about this, or see anything insulting about Robert Burns in it. You seem to be overreacting a bit here. Fram (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pure obfuscation. Please discuss the issue. Rosser Gruffydd 08:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record I do not think we should have any article on anyone who died before age 5, period, nor do I think we should create articles on people who are not yet 5. The one exception might be if someone that age actually is the monarch of somewhere. There may be a few other exceptions, but I have opposed articles with actual secondary source coverage focused on people this young. Definitely finding a mention in a personal letter of a child about to be born by anyone does not show that person is notable. Notability is not inherited. No matter how notable someone is, that does not directly make anyone related to them notable. It may indirectly work, if it leads to reliable source secondary coverage of these other people that is significant in sources than are independent of the subject, but it does not directly lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Age is far to blunt a tool to apply. Robert Burns, a world famous individual and Scotland's most famous person, was dying and his thoughts and actions were concenrated on his wife and new baby! This article pulls together all that is known and as President of a researching Burns Club (No.2262) we will be adding more information as we find it. Rosser Gruffydd 08:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has had 223 views to date (datum 24 Jan) and views of your proposal on 'Robert Burns' Facebook have reached 1400. I note that Wikipedia has many articles that are only a line or two long with request tags to 'Expand' them. You say that the Burns Bibliography has a single line. Try the official source for details - "Purdie, David; McCue Kirsteen and Carruthers, Gerrard. (2013). Maurice Lindsay's The Burns Encyclopaedia. London : Robert Hale. ISBN 978-0-7090-9194-3." Rosser Gruffydd 08:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Number of views for an article at AfD is hardly indicative of anything. Trying to get outside support from a partisan audience is called WP:CANVASSing though. I don't have access to the "official" source (since when do we have "official" and "unofficial" sources for the biographies of long-dead people?), but e.g. this 2011 biography of Burns[Maurice Lindsay's The Burns Encyclopaedia] has two sentences about Maxwell, which is indicative of the importance of Maxwell. In Ian McIntyre's "Robert Burns: A Life", he gets a footnote... Fram (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Fram - about your perhaps and hopefully unintended 'insulting' comments regarding 'fluff' and 'padding out'. I run an official Burns Research Club and we do what it says on the box. As a representative of Wikipedia, part of your purpose is to be impartial and polite. Wikipedia policy on this topic of 'Editor Standards' makes interesting reading which you need to read and in part refresh your memory? I have quite a few articles on Wikipedia and once had a polite message of thanks from the Wikiedia Founder. I also support Wikipedia with donations. What have you to say? You seemed angry at the person who voted 'Keep'. Rosser Gruffydd 08:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Your donations and relations with Jimmy Wales are not really relevant for the fate of this article. Donations don't give you any more or less status on Wikipedia. I'm glad you run an "official" Burns research club (as opposed to an unofficial one supposedly). Fram (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is flexible and an article that covers the last child of a world famous celebrity and Scotland's most famous person, as voted by the Scottish People, has a far greater relevance than the average Joe. Would you treat say George Washington with the same perceived lack of respect? Rosser Gruffydd 08:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As an American who has focused extensively on the US Presidency, I would say "Yes" though not out of "lack of respect". I would give equal treatment to a son of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln who was born shortly after their death, who lived less than three years, who lacks any SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, and for whom the major sourcing consists of a couple brief mentions in prenatal letters written by the father. Our WP:GNG guideline requires that the subject of a stand-alone article (in this case, Maxwell) has received in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Here, the mentions of an unborn son in Burns' letters does not rise to the level of SIGCOV, and the letters do not qualify as either independent (written by the father) or secondary. Cbl62 (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Another guideline that provides some good insights is WP:NOTINHERITED. Cbl62 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To take it even further, of Thomas Jefferson's 6 children from marriage, only two have articles. Neither of John Adams' two children who did not see adulthood have articles either. George Washington didn't have any biological children, but neither of the two children of Martha Washington's that died at young ages have standalone articles. So yeah, this is a standard treatment. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Relevant information should be merged into Robert Burns's article, but there's nothing in terms of referencing that would support a standalone article. I also agree with Fram that there are some other related articles that appear to have dubious notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED, and keep arguments are variants of WP:ILIKEIT - including some accusations as to the nominator's motives which are irrelevant to the subject, really. Geschichte (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2022 (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.