Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Smith (John Lennon)

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Smith (John Lennon)

Non-notable uncle of John Lennon. Being the uncle of John Lennon does not make him notable, and I don't think that there is anything else that could possibly make him notable. DarthVader 07:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (see below for striketrough reason and new vote), the article explains that John Lennon was raised by this uncle (rather than being a random uncle) and had a significant impact on Lennons life. Given the fact that also Lennons mother has an article (Julia Lennon), which is probably true for more famous people, I would not delete this article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment actually, by and large, famous peoples' parents, siblings, and other relatives don't get articles unless they have personally done something that meets the WP:BIO criteria.--Isotope23 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and integral but oftern overlooked key in The Beatles (and especially Lennon's) mythology (if that's the right word). George features prominantly in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon.--Crestville 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability doesn't rub off on relatives - My favourite example : David Beckham = notable footballer Victoria Beckham = notable singer Brooklyn Beckham = non-notable baby DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 13:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, depending on the relation between the relative and the famous person, notability does rub off. Its not coincidence that so many childeren of famous people also get famous. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If he's notable, it's only in his connection to John Lennon, so just beef up the already in place comments about him in the John Lennon article. --PresN 14:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per Crestville and Reinoutr. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Crestville and REinoutr. Scorpiondollprincess 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Notability is not genetic (otherwise pretty much everyone would be notable!), though does anyone else find "Menlove Avenue" funny? Wickethewok 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Definite keep This man has been sadly neglected by history, and one of his few epitaphs is this small page. What a travesty. He bought Lennon his first harmonica, and encouraged him musically, unlike Mimi, who nearly destroyed the fledgling Beatles with her negativity. Don´t forget that Lennon played harmonica on Love me do. His presence is as important in musical history as McCartney´s mother, father, Lennon´s Mimi, Julia and Fred. Are the tourists that visit Menlove Avenue not told about him? Definitely keep, and hopefully expand with a photo. andreasegde 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO on his own. Mention is already made at John Lennon and could be expanded there. If kept (and it appears there is a reasonably good chance this will happen based on consensus here), the article should be moved to a more standard namespace: George Toogood Smith.--Isotope23 19:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If everybody keeps merging things into the main articles, they will only be readable if you have a few hours to spare, and will be almost incomprehensible. If The Beatles´ tape engineers have their own articles, then why not George? andreasegde 19:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please spare us the slippery slope fallacy. We have a perfectly good system for splitting up articles when they become too long to be manageable. John Lennon does not currently suffer from this problem. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: While the subject of the article is the uncle of a Beatles member, it just doesn't do anything to prove how notable he is per WP:BIO. Less famous, by the way, and only a mere footnote in the history of the Fab Four. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge with John Lennon article. I agree that George Smith does not rate a seperate article, but he is an important and largely forgotten influence on Lennon. He might be usefully added as a footnote section in the Lennon article.LessHeard vanU 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Have you read the Lennon article? George Smith is already covered in it, and as more than a footnote, too. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Read it? I've rewritten bits of it!(grin)I mean; rather than have Uncle George as part of Lennons pre Beatles history, have a "sub article" toward the end of the Lennon article relating to George Smith. Just a thought...LessHeard vanU 12:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge if any of the handful of additional details here are felt to be relevant to John Lennon; George Smith is not notable in his own right, and does not need an article of his own. No redirect is needed (unless a merge is performed), since the page title is disambiguated and thus not a likely search term. — Haeleth Talk 20:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As LessHeard vanU points out, a very important influence on Lennon. In a different league from the Beckham/Beckham example. Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and provide sources for existing content. Yamaguchi先生 02:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• George Smith was important to Lennon, but not nearly so much so as his widow. As such, a merge with the article on Mimi Smith might be a reasonable solution. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I read the article three times to make sure I hadn't missed anything but I still couldn't find any notability whatsoever. This is one of the least notable relatives I've ever come across on AfD. Less notable than Beckham or Pitt/Jolie kids, less notable than relatives of early Islamic figures. Those relatives get deleted routinely and I can't see anything here at all notable. MLA 08:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I suppose this really depends on how well-known you are with a given person or subject. Personally, I find someone who apparently was a big influence on one of the worlds best known artist much more notable than the kids of random famous people, of which it is still unknown whether they will ever do anything significant or influence anyone else who does something significant. If it is not kept, a merge and redirect to Mimi Smith would be the best solution I suppose (per Grutness). Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hi, this is why I ensured that I included the mention of the Islamic relatives. There are some editors who believe that parents of Islamic figures are more notable than someone who apparently had an influence on a musician - this is not recentism on my behalf. At present, the article does not contain a single assertion of notability. Even if there was some influence on Lennon, that does not mean that the person themselves is notable. The article states that he was the uncle of Lennon, and that Lennon lived with George Smith for most of his childhood. It then asserts that Smith lived a non-notable life before dying when Lennon was 15. None of that is even a claim of notability hence my statement that this is the least notable relative I have ever seen at AfD. MLA 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I see your point and actually agree with you :). I've been bold and included the only thing I thought was really notable from this article (that George raised Lennons interest in music) and included that in Mimi Smith. Therefore, my new vote is Delete. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. No claim for notability in his own right is made. Any useful information should be in John Lennon. David | Talk 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment About this he was a great influence on John ... my dad once bought me a harmonica - didn't get me anywhere!!! John Lennon already had the music in him ... it was he who met Paul &co at school/college. I think if he lived with my uncle the Beatles and John Lennon would still have existed exactly as they did. In a nutshell ... John was talented and self motivated (obviously POV this!!!) DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 11:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, that is why your dad does not deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia and George Smith does :). But seriously, I already changed my mind (and the article on Mimi Smith) a little), so I am ok with deletion. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge George and Mimi into one article. This is a perfectly valid content branch from the John Lennon article, which is already too long as it is. No sources given but that shouldn't be a problem. I see no reason to keep them separate though. ~ trialsanderrors 10:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (Meaning no sources given is a problem, but it shouldn't be too hard to source the article. Get to work, Beatles fans!) ~ trialsanderrors 10:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I will sort that in time. I have some books about him.--Crestville 11:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sure they pop up in about a hundred Beatles biographies, but you should still list them. The article also needs de-cheesifying. (George delivered milk by pony and trap in the Woolton area. The milk was held in a large churn which was ladled out to customers into their own bottles and receptacles is not of particular encyclopedic interest.) If people have problems about them getting top billing in an ecyclopedia, rename the article John Lennon's Youth and add his parents to it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
        • This is a good suggestion, a merged article with all members of his family, with a link from the John Lennon article, "pre The Beatles" section. ps. It wasn't cheesy, it was likely to have been freshly pasteurised!LessHeard vanU 21:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the fact that he needs (John Lennon) to disambiguate him stronly suggests that he lacks independent notablity and thus should be covered in John Lennon. Eluchil404 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. There are 37 other George Smiths' listed in Wiki's disambiguantion page, 17 of whom have blue links. In this instance (but perhaps not others) the individuals notability is not dependent on how he is disambiguated.LessHeard vanU 22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I wish those people associated with The Beatles Project would declare an interest when voting on these matters. No matter how important the Beatles are, this is not WikiBeatles! As suggested above, George could easily be moved into an article about John Lennon's youth. Who is actually going to look for this George Smith because he was once associated with John Lennon? Nobody - anybody who wants that kind of depth of information will buy the books. At this rate somebody will want to write an article on me - and that would never do! So a firm delete --Richhoncho 12:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As a member of The Beatles Project my interest is the same as everyone else on this page; improving Wikipedia. My votes and comments have not been a straight "keep" either, more a weak keep - and merge into a more suitable article.LessHeard vanU 21:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment that's pretty speculative. Who's to say someonne wanting to know about him would immediately turn to books? With that sort of thing my first turn is always wikipedia so as to save meself a tenner nad a trip to waterstones. BTW, LessHeard vanU declared his intentions way up near the top.--Crestville 12:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment. You're right, Crestville, to want to look up George Smith (John Lennon) you would have already read some Beatle books, which is the only reason he could be considered notable in the first place. --Richhoncho 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yet Further Comment I disagree. Anyway, what about the people who just come to browse? Why should they have to read all the Lennon page, when they could look in the Lennon category and find a link?--Crestville 20:39, 23 July 2006 (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.