Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 01:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.

William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

William Jefferson Blythe, Jr.'s sole claim to father is that he was President Bill Clinton's biological father. However, he died three months prior to Clinton's birth and played no part in his upbringing. Doesn't meet notability or WP:BIO criteria. Only reason it seems to be included is that he is Bill Clinton's father and notability is not inherited. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I hope you realise that your supposed to avoid that argument. I think that the subject of this article is actually quite notable, being the father of a world famous figure, so keep.--Phoenix-wiki 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see [1] particularly the last subsection title Non valid general criteria. Being related to a notable person does not, by itself, make a person notable. I just went off the link included in that section. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Would you point out the section in WP:ATA that you have in mind, Phoenix-wiki? --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: Both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE say: A person is presumed to be notable enough for a standalone article if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. So the question becomes is there significant third party coverage?

  • The Fathers of American Presidents - Jeff C. Young - 1997 (a complete chapter is devoted to him)
  • Several newspapers have conducted exhaustive investigations into Clinton's parentage (I will provide the list Monday) and that's how the four marriages were revealed. That of course reveals something about Clinton's character which is not discussed in the President Clinton article.
  • He is extensively discussed in Clinton's My Life (Bill Clinton autobiography) (including a tale of visiting the site where he was killed)

And of course there's the whole thing the father of a president is almost inherently notable -- especially when he's the namesake of the President and that he's buried next to the President's mother. Americasroof (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep the immediate family of a head of state is notable, and this had sources for notability in any event. DGG (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I usually edit football articles but I don't want any Republican Party supporters hounding me. Using the flawed logic of delete, Chelsea Clinton would also have to be deleted. So would most of the British Royal family. The man has plenty of citations about him per Google. I didn't know about the book coverage, but that's more references. This is an example of horrible judgment, IMHO (and that's being kind because if it's not bad judgment then it is a bad faith nomination, which is even worse). Steelersruletheworld (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay and not policy or guideline. The original afd nomination here was an attempt to wipe out articles on three relatives of Presidents in one fell swoop because it was more convenient than writing three afds. Please show your good faith and follow the wiki policy of one afd per article so that they can be discussed each on their own merits. Americasroof (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If "one afd per article" is the Wikipedia policy, please explain why we have WP:BUNDLE. A polite request to separate a multiple is acceptable, but badgering the nominator for bad faith is not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability does not perpetuate backwards through time to make an ancestor of a U.S. President notable. Blythe himself clearly fails to satisfy WP:N so his article should be redirected to the Clinton article. Some appropriate mention could be made there. Edison (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Americasroof. Rray (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Being the President's father, one talked about frequently by President Clinton, is noteworthy Rotovia (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG -Lciaccio (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the biological father of a head of state of the USA? Easy. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, because, yes, to certain extend notability is inherited. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Individual notability is established by the lengthy Washington Post profile from 1993 in addition to sources mentioned by Americasroof. Multiple, independent, reliable sources can verify this article. "Notability is not inherited" is a straw man argument. Nobody is arguing for the notability of Dustin Diamond's father here. --JayHenry (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficient material exists to write a decent article. I'd be surprised if any US president's father would fail WP:N; people are interested in this kind of information and have done the research to find it. Zagalejo^^^ 04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily meets both WP:N and WP:BIO, and I'm not sure on what basis the nominator claims otherwise. A truly spurious nomination.--Father Goose (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject is the father of an American president. That is notable enough to warrant an article. --Tocino 18:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO, not enough significant coverage in secondary material that establishes independent notability.--Strothra (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Care to elaborate? The Washington Post article and the chapter in The Fathers of American Presidents are both primarily about this man. Zagalejo^^^ 18:22, 8 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.