Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Monjack


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete !votes Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 16:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Simon Monjack

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lets start a bit about this brief recent history of this article, back in February (correction) March, I nominated this for a WP:PROD for that Mr. Monjack's only reliable third party coverage there is was being married to a famous actress, he was never famous for being a director, producer, a screenwriter or whatever. As for his "career", IMDB cannot be at all considerred a reliable third party source; the claim that he is a writer for one film have been rebuked by the director of that film he claimed, but still only received a credit for ass listed by IMDB.

As for being married to somebody famous, he ain't no Elin Nordegren or Kate Middleton enough to have his own article here. These were my decision to originally PROD this article, which then another editor later merged it to Murphy's article, caliming that notability is not inherrited, which I agreed on that decision. Now after learning that this was reverted because of reliable third party coverage of his death, I decided to revert this back to its merged state but another editor disagreed reverting this back suggesting that I should nominate it for an AfD if I disagree, hence I take this decision to nominate this article for deletion. I am willing to accept a decision to merge this to Brittany Murphy

Below, I included the original PROD nomination.

The only reliable third-party sources there is that exists of this BLP is either being married to Brittany Murphy or being still married to her at the time of the events that led to her death, nothing else in between. Other than that, there is no evidence of notability in existence other than anything in relation to Ms. Murphy's death or the time or their marriage, not even on his own or even his career. Donnie Park (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination:I am withdrawing this nomination for the time being. Donnie Park (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Has gone beyond stub class since the concerns raised in February 2010 and meets WP:GNG.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, only on his marriage, legal troubles, death and whatever has to do with his wife which all of its claim of fame has to do with, that will make up for more than a stub article. Anything to do with his career is IMDB, which cannot be classed as a reliable third party source. Have any reliable third party sources mentioned him without namedropping his wife? I doubt it. Donnie Park (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My correction, actually it was March not February, looking at the differences between the PROD nomination and events since then prior to this nom, the difference between these edits is his death, but then unless you are murdered, does dying make you famous. Donnie Park (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are several reliable sources that cover him in detail (for example: ). From the GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The coverage is clearly significant as I see it. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Brittany Murphy, as his only claim to notability is being her husband. Coverage only of his death (or only in relation to her death) does not confer notability, and it doesn't help that the articles on his death are mainly concerned with recapping what happened to her. Karanacs (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I understand the reasoning for this AfD, in my view Monjack moved well past the point of notability in his own right after Brittany's death.  I also don't think a re-merger is editorially desirable at this point, since there is a lot of stuff about him now that isn't about her.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ARGUMENT TO KEEP THE ARTICLE: The page for Simon Monjack should remain. He was still a human being who made headlines, regardless what that was for. Monjack did in fact work in the movie industry, which is not being disputed. Despite whether legalities of copyrights and contracts which outsiders will likely never be privy to, he made contributions in his circles the extent of which we also are not privy to. Of course he gained additional notoriety because of his very famous late wife's passing; however, that doesn't mean that he does not deserve a short article of factual information since his degree of famosity was not equal to his wife's.

If this is deleted, then by that logic so should the pages of many others whose spotlight was brightened by proxy of their spouse's much brighter light. Now that he's passed on, strangely very soon after his late wife's passing (also a fact worth remarking at least for its poetic value if nothing else), and respect should be shown by acknowledging he existed, like any other human being with some spotlight. There is more than enough space to do so, and in addition, one never knows how much more remarkable information is discovered posthumously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisan1978 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC) — Lisan1978 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. I have heard of this man independent of his wife.  Yes he is linked to his wife, but he is still independent of her.  Doing a Google search of his name while excluding his wife’s ("simon monjack" -Brittany -Murphy) still brings up 738,000 results.  I do agree IMDB should not be the only source of information, but I think the page is still valid.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per above reasonings. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets wp:gng to me. Dismas |(talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This man was a director. Now mind you he only had one film, but he was a director none the less.  He was independent from his wife.  While his marriage to Brittney Murphy did bring him further in the spotlight, it does not diminish his career and his independence.  To say so is without merit.  If this is deleted, there are quite a few others in Wikipedia that meet this same criteria for deletion that is being used for Mr. Monjack.  Some in this category include Kate Middleton, famous for her wait for Prince William- no real career to speak of  and Elin Nordgrun, a former nanny now wife of Tiger Woods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.142.1.16 (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. errrrr...since when was he ever a significant director, is there any reliable third party source to back your claim or are you a conlict of interest party, friends or relatives of his in that case, if you are then consider yourself conflict of interest and stay out...what I stated was all he was known for was getting married to Ms Murphy just so he can keep his ass in la la land and live off her money, hence how I compares him to Ms Middleton and Mrs Woods and your vote counts for nothing since your reason are pretty lame. Donnie Park (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Further comment. I am suspecting that 160.142.1.16 and Lisan1978 is a sockpuppet of ARTEST4ECHO. The claim that "independent of his wife" is just a sign unless this user have cut and paste a word and passed it off as his own. Donnie Park (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant enough coverage of his own life, separate from his wife's. First Light (talk) 04:38, 29 May 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.