Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of Paul 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. The type of content in these articles is widely accepted as belonging in Wikipedia so long as it is reliably sourced, as evidenced by a plethora of featured and good articles. Ultimately this is a concern of whether there is not enough reliably sourced information to constitute articles separate from the main articles. For these articles in general, it has not been demonstrated that this is the case.  Jujutacular  talk 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal relationships of Paul McCartney

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

These "personal relationships of" articles are really no more than coatracks on which to hang large quantities of gossip (some well-sourced, some not so) regarding the associates of prominent people -- gossip that for the most part lacks sufficient encyclopedic value to be included, at this level of detail, in the primary biographies. While not everyone mentioned still survives, the articles include problematic BLP content, and often include information regarding deceased persons which is more titillating than encyclopedic. Information, like much found in these articles, which plays a minor part in full-length biographical works, is given undue weight when excerpted and given prominence in short Wikipedia articles. In the absence of any discernible relationship to the genuinely significant aspects of the subjects' careers, such content should neither be included in the subjects' biographies nor given greater prominence by spinning off separate articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with the nominator. The properly referenced aspects of each article can be merged to the articles on their respective subjects - assuming that the material is not already there. Otherwise, there is a lot of innuendo pretending to be fact (especially in the Elvis article) and the encyclopedic value of the ex-girlfriends of a few pop stars is nil. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep All standard biographies on these celebrities include several chapters on their personal relationships. As the main Wikipedia articles are too long, the material has been put in separate articles. Different readers desire different levels of detail concerning the relationships of a celebrity: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the very short information in the main articles; more people need a lot of info and therefore find the "personal relationships" articles suitable to their needs. That's why they have been created. Even gossipy information about the celebrities' relationships is part of their history, the more so, as megastars such as Jackson, Presley and Sinatra are widely known as sex symbols and several books and gender studies have been published discussing their affairs and relationships. Onefortyone (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons as others have given above. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all Beautiful argument, but those articles pass every rule and policy of Wikipedia, even Jackson's is a GA (which I suggest you to take to GAR before even try to nominate it here). Also, this is not a page for suggest merging, even when their biographies are excessively long to merge those articles. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep First, the nominator's concerns seem to be limited to improving the article, not to deleting it. If we were to merge the relevant content into the main one, we cannot merge and delete.  And the concerns about sourcing should be brought to the talk page, not debated here at AFD.  (A cursory glance shows that most of the refs in the mentioned articles are sourced to hard biographies instead of gossipy websites.)  And as Tbhotch points out, the fact the Michael Jackson article is a GA means it is inherently notable and should be de-listed before nominated for AFD. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I also have to agree with the nominator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.183.44 (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom (specifically WP:COATRACK). - SudoGhost (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all. These are all valid subtopics that have been split off due to size reasons; one has even been identified as a Good Article.  The deletion rationales above largely smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:VAGUEWAVE, dismissing these subjects as "gossipy" despite the fact that they are reliably sourced (and not to tabloids) or nonsensically claiming that they put WP:UNDUE weight on one subtopic when they are each one article of many about each of these individuals (in the same way that Frank Sinatra filmography puts undue weight on his film career, I suppose).  The comment that these would only play a "minor part" in biographies is unsupported and simply untrue, as Onefortyone notes.  Each of these individuals was in multiple high-profile relationships with separately notable people.  I imagine there are people who would prefer Wikipedia biographies stick purely to summarizing careers and notable achievements, but whether we like it or not, the personal lives of celebrities is a significant focus of public and media attention, and it's necessary for a full understanding of who they were.  I note that only two other articles in Category:Personal relationships by individual were not included in this AFD: Personal relationships of Alexander the Great and Personal relationships of James I of England.  These don't pose WP:UNDUE problems?  Or is it just more acceptable when the "gossip" about who was banging who comes from Plutarch?  Not to suggest that Elvis is as historically significant as Alexander the Great, but I honestly don't see a difference between maintaining those split-off articles and these, and the OTHERSTUFF comparison is relevant because the deletion nom here is attacking the very concept of having personal relationships as a split-off subtopic.  Other articles on purely personal, and even speculative, biographical detail include Vincent van Gogh's health, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life...  It's not for us to hold our noses in the air and decide that aspects of notable subjects that have been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources are too low for us to include, and we certainly shouldn't privilege one subject over another just because it's in textbooks and the other has been tabloid fodder.  postdlf (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I excluded the other two "personal relationships" articles because they did not raise any BLP issues, making them unsuitable to include in a group nomination which invoked WP:BLP. But I do think that "privileging one subject over another just because it's in textbooks and the other has been tabloid fodder" is a legitimate argument, reflecting principles expressed in the WP:BLP policy as well as WP:RS.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The mere fact that a subject has been covered in tabloids is irrelevant if we are not using tabloids as sources. And I see BLP mentioned above, but I don't see an actual deletion argument based on BLP.  Nor can I imagine one that would apply to articles that are primarily about deceased people, nor articles primarily about celebrities who are by definition not private, nor articles that include content on non-celebrities because of their publicly known association with celebrities.  And in many instances, film studios, record labels, or the celeb's own PR agent purposefully publicized these relationships.  It's standard practice for top celebrities to make relationship-related announcements through press releases or to give interviews on the subject, even if they are a tier or so down on the fame scale from these article subjects (such as Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke: "In an interview airing Friday on ABC's 20/20, Hawke discussed the end of his five-year marriage and why he thinks things with Thurman dissolved." "Uma Thurman spoke publicly about the breakup, telling Oprah Winfrey on the talk host's program Friday..."; "Thurman's spokesman later confirmed the engagement [to Arpad Busson").  If you look at the Sinatra article for example, every one of his wives and every one of the relationships described and every one of his children is/was a celebrity in their own right and has their own article.  Even Debbie Rowe, who only became notable by virtue of her marriage to Michael Jackson, has her own article, is described as having given interviews (however infrequently) and making statements to the press through her attorneys, and was portrayed in at least one notable dramatized work.  There's obviously much less of a privacy concern with people who willingly engaged with the media (or, arguably, anyone who willingly got involved with A-list celebrities such as these whose every move is reported), and whose stories have even been dramatized, above and beyond their simply being widely reported.  So the only relevance BLP has here is editing concerns: making sure everything is reliably sourced and that there isn't unnecessary private detail (which you probably think all of these articles are) that isn't relevant to their widely-reported relationships with these celebrities or other aspects of their public lives.  It would be a different question if we were talking about a standalone article on a housewife rumored to have slept with Sinatra once, or tabloid reports alleging that said housewife and her husband held a key party prior to her getting banged Ol' Blue Eyes.  Nor are we talking about detailed articles on the relationships of barely notable cartoon voice actors, game show hosts, or an infomercial spokesperson; it's hard to get more famous than Jackson, Elvis, Sinatra, and McCartney are/were worldwide.  So I see no unfixable BLP issues here that would compel deletion.  postdlf (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (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.