Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relatives of 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 keep. WjBscribe 08:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relatives of John Lennon

(View log)

Julia Lennon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mimi Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I apologize in advance for nominating two quality-rated articles. They have obviously been around for quite some time and have had a lot of work put into them, but I nevertheless don't think that either meets the notability criteria.

Julia Lennon and Mimi Smtih have no notability of their own. Their sole reason for having articles here is their relationship to John Lennon, as mother and aunt, respectively. Julia was a mother and a homemaker; Mimi was a nurse and a secretary. Neither has, on her own, made any impact on the world. Considered independently of John Lennon (as they should be), these are the biographies of two absolutely ordinary people.

Both articles appear to have been pieced together entirely from snippets in works about John's life that happened to involve his mother or aunt. I don't see a single source that has Julia or Mimi as the primary subject, paper or internet, and that is the most basic criterion at WP:BIO.

"That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article." Julia Lennon and Mimi Smith are not a notable people in their own right and should not have articles any more than John Lennon's grandparents, distant cousins, childhood schoolmates, or bus drivers. Dylan (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, I appreciate where you're coming from, but from WP:BIO, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability," which in my opinion is what is happening here. I think you're going to be hard pressed to get consensus to delete either of these. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
• Keep I agree with Lankveil, substantial referenced biographical coverage trumps the notion of related fame not being enough. --Canley (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – Sorry to disagree and to honest understand why you nominated. However, there is a case for notability just given the fact that Julian Lennon is John Lennon’s mother, in the same way we have articles about Hitler’s mother and stepfather. And yes, I know, I could have used a better comparison, but it was the first name that popped into my head. Shoessss |  Chat  13:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oops! Typo there. "Julia" and "Julian" are both relatives, but Julia is the mother. Julian had some fame of his own as a singer, independent of his father. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I have read that this is not a paper encyclopedia; so allowing for subjects that would not be "notable" elsewhere, where print space is at a premium. Mimi Smith and Julia Lennon both had a great effect on Lennon's life, and he mentioned them in songs. I agree with Shoessss, and wonder just how many other articles there are about the relatives of famous persons. Plus: detailing every episode of The Simpsons and every football quarter-back comes into question. --andreasegde (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC) P.S., regarding citations, Julia Lennon has 66 and Mimi Smith has 71, and I think they are as notable as The Green (Dartmouth College), if you don't mind me saying so. :) --andreasegde (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment The argument that we should keep an article about a subject lacking notabililty because there are lots of other articles about not-very-notable subjects is not an effective one. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Each article should be judged on its own merits rather than allowing the presence of other poor articles to be used as a reason to drag the quality of the encyclopedia down with yet more poor articles. Edison (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – And it was, if you feel not, than what constitutes notability? When an individual is referenced in numerous reliable and verifiable sources, though you may not agree with the source, how does is that not delineate notability? My suggestion would be rather than criticizing improve! It would be greatly appreciated. Shoessss |  Chat  Shoessss |  Chat  21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep "John Lennon's grandparents, distant cousins, childhood schoolmates, or bus drivers" (from the nom) do not, should not, and will never have articles about them - nor is there a floodgate of such articles waiting to open. That's a straw man argument, and kind of silly to boot - Julia and Mimi were both very important to John personally and professionally - they are arguably the greatest female (or not) influences on him prior to Yoko Ono - and their articles give us insight into him that adds to our knowledge. Exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Indeed, Wikipedia is not paper, and we do not have the kinds of space constraints that Britannica does - but we try to keep the length of articles in somewhat manageable form, so we create sub-articles such as these so as to not overload people. If we had no such concerns, then these two women would likely each have a major section in John's article, as long as their separate articles or nearly so. That would be unmanageable, so they are forked off and people who want to learn more about these influential individuals can do so, while those who only want the overview get it in the main article. Just like every other complex Wikipedia article. I also object to the implicit denigration of "mother and aunt" as if that's prima facie not enough to make someone notable - is Freddie more notable because he's male? These are GA for reasons, and this nomination is way off base. I'd be happy to see this snowed, but I'll leave that to someone else, as I've edited some on Beatles articles. Tvoz |talk 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • First, that last line ending with "bus driver" was not the driving point of my argument but simply a closing illustration of why these subjects aren't notable. Second, I dislike your implication that this nomination is somehow sexist. I wrote that they were "mother and aunt" because that's literally all they were, in additional to "homemaker" and "nurse", as also noted. And yes, if someone's crowning achievement in life is being the sister of someone who gave birth to someone else, I do consider that prima facie evidence of non-notability. I considered, but decided against nominating Alfred Lennon because (1) there is a book about him specifically cited (Daddy come home : the true story of John Lennon and his father), and because he also achieved a (very low) level of publicity independently by releasing his own record and having it be the subject of several newspaper articles. He has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources and therefore meets WP:BIO, although not by a wide margin in my opinion. At any rate, I recognized that it was close enough to not waste anyone's time with the nomination. Dylan (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Smerge These individuals lack any notability other than being mentioned in accounts of John Lennon, so the basic facts about their influence on his life should be merged to his article. Being related to a notable person and being mentioned in stories about him does not create the degree of notability needed to satisfy WP:BIO. As for the merge making the Lennon article too long, some details in these articles should be omitted, such as that Mimi "did have a stainless-steel double-drainer kitchen sink installed in 1961 that she was very proud of." There is also the license plate number and later career accomplishments of the driver who struck and killed Julia. In other words, the encyclopedic material could be merged into the Lennon article without adding the total verbiage of the two related articles. In addition, there is duplication of genealogical information in the two articles. Edison (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep It is prepostrous to even suggest that such huge influences on Lennon both as a person and an artist are not noteable - prepostrous! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I feel that (as you just pointed out), the point is their influence but not them. Their influence is only important in the context of John; it's the influence on him, so it should be discussed in his article. The minute details of Mimi's and Julia's lives are irrelevant. Dylan (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant to what exactly? They're famous people and well documented; all the info in their articles should be relevant to them and encyclopedic - if it's not, the articles need to be trimmed. I'd sooner be reading about these people, who have genuinely influenced popular culture albeit indirectly, than a DJ on local radio or a bit part actor, both of whom the guidelines generally consider notable. --kingboyk (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Your comment presupposes their notability (They're famous people). Leaving aside for a moment whether or not they are notable enough to have an article, let's consider the grounds on which that notability is asserted. "Keep" and "Delete" recommenders alike seem to acknowledge that Mimi and Julia's notability is solely in their relationship to and influence of John Lennon -- that is, no one is claiming that their lives in and of themselves were notable (for achievements or other independent accomplishments; that if John were never born, we'd still have the article on them). The notable element is the relationship and influence given by these women, as separate from their actual lives. That's a very important distinction.
      • I agree that the influence and relationship is important and notable, and should absolutely be treated on Wikipedia. Subsequently, the question becomes where that information should be discussed. Most of the contributers at this discussion believe it warrants separate articles for the identity of those who gave that influence. However, it seems glaringly obvious to me that the place to discuss an influence on John Lennon and a relationship with John Lennon is at the article called John Lennon. The notability itself is only meaningful within the context of John. The John-Mimi relationship isn't important to the world because it affected or originated with Mimi; it's only important for its ultimate effect on John. John is the notable one, not her. It's the same reason why we don't have an article on the cherry tree George Washington cut down. The tree was important, but only in the context of George. We don't need to know about its species classification, what it looked like, and how old it was.
      • My point is that the kernel of notability we're debating does not lie within the actual biography of either woman. That's the reason why when you read either article, you simply come away with a profile of an ordinary person who could just as likely have been you or me -- a woman who led a normal life, had a childhood, adulthood, marriage and children, and who did nothing on her own of any note whatsoever. That nugget of notability is inherently part of John's life, not anyone else's.
      • As far as the actual content of either biography is concerned -- and this is a somewhat separate issue than whether the article should be deleted -- both are riddled with unimportant, extraneous details. The following examples are just a taste from a skimming of the first half of Julia Lennon:
        • Julia was known as being high-spirited and impulsive...
        • Alfred 'Freddie' Lennon—always called 'Alf' by his family—was always quick with a joke or a witty line...
        • Alf, who was dressed in a bowler hat and holding a cigarette holder...
        • She could tell a joke as bawdy as any man...
      • In a certain way, it's understandable that this level of petty detail is included because, as I've pointed out, these women aren't notable. We can't write about their great achievements and lasting contributions to humanity, because they have none. The article on William Shakespeare wastes little time discussing the kinds of jokes he told because there are more pressing and historically significant parts of his life to discuss, like his career as a playwright. In the case of the Lennons who don't have similar achievements, the only way to fill up a biography about them is to include the minutiae of their everyday existence, like what they wore, how their personalities were perceived by others, and how they plodded through life. The remarkable unremarkability of Mimi and Julia's lives is a testament to their lack of notability.Dylan (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • • As for petty details - Ron Paul proposed to his wife at a "park picnic" and Mitt Romney hates eggplant. These details are equally "petty", yet no one suggests they are in those articles because there's nothing else to say about the subjects. It's a style of biography writing - not always my favorite, I have to admit - but some think the inclusion of small details adds a humanizing dimension and helps us to get a clearer picture of the person in our minds. Details are not necessarily added merely to fill up space. So I don't agree with your assumption that petty details=nothing to say. As Kingboyk suggests, trimming and deletion are two different things. Tvoz |talk 09:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand your point, so we'll have to agree to disagree. To my mind your argument calls for a trimming of the articles not deletion. I appreciate that you see it differently; thank you for the civil dialogue. --kingboyk (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Thanks to you, too, for the same. Dylan (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• strong delete per nom. However great an influence on John Lennon they may have been, that is only a claim for discussing them in his article, not for devoting separate articles to each of them. People with just as strong an influence on far more important artists do not (and should not) get their own articles. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Isn't this argument just the other side of OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Tvoz |talk 00:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Hold on... "People with just as strong an influence on far more important artists"? Far more important? I am sure there are, but it's a strange line to use. --andreasegde (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep For a while now I've been feeling that availability of reliable sources (or lack thereof) ought to trump some invented scale of potential "notability" based on level of achievement. These people have been extensively documented in a wide range of publications, that in essence is "notability"; they are far more "notable" than people who qualify for an article because they had a top 40 hit in Luxembourg but about whom next to nothing has ever been written (WP:MUSIC). If that's not good enough, then I refer you to Vera, Chuck & Dave and others who have also illustrated the importance of these people. Wikipedia is not paper, and articles like this do the encyclopedia credit because we have the resources to write about them and paper enyclopedias do not. --kingboyk (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2008 (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.