Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Mathieson: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Tim Mathieson: fix indent |
Brett.Samuel (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:*'''Comment''' Does not necessarily meet WP:N. WP:N states "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article" Does any of the coverage discuss the subject in his own right, rather than as the partner of the PM. The articles may be about him but the only interest in his role as the PMs partner. -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment''' Does not necessarily meet WP:N. WP:N states "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article" Does any of the coverage discuss the subject in his own right, rather than as the partner of the PM. The articles may be about him but the only interest in his role as the PMs partner. -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' To add to my deletion rationale, I would ask this question: What happens if the PM and the subject break up and the PM finds a new partner? Do each of the PMs future dates get an article? When do we deem a relationship of the PM to be serious enough that the partner requires an article? -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' To add to my deletion rationale, I would ask this question: What happens if the PM and the subject break up and the PM finds a new partner? Do each of the PMs future dates get an article? When do we deem a relationship of the PM to be serious enough that the partner requires an article? -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Wow, that is rude, they are living together, and they have been together for four years. If that were the case I would have to ask, with divorce rates at 50% should we stop including the husbands/wives however notable because they might get divorced? -- [[User:Brett Samuel|Brett Samuel]]\<sup>[[User talk:Brett Samuel|talk]]</sup> 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:28, 25 June 2010
- Tim Mathieson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely non-notable except for the fact that he shares a house with a politician. Notability is not sexually transmitted. Speedy deletion refused - I think this deserves some discussion. Mattinbgn\talk 13:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I disagree For example, see Thérèse_Rein or Denis Thatcher. It is hypocritical to reject Mathieson but have a page on Thérèse_Rein. She would also be entirely non-notable, except for the fact that she shares a house with a politician. When it comes to the Prime Minister of a country, notability is sexually transmitted. Brett Samuel\talk 13:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. Rein is a successful millionare businesswoman. Thatcher is a knight of the realm. Mathieson is a hairdresser. WWGB (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable. --Ari (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, "family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits." This guy does not make the cut. WWGB (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep has appeared in several major newspaper articles as the major topic, surpassing WP:N. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Does not necessarily meet WP:N. WP:N states "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article" Does any of the coverage discuss the subject in his own right, rather than as the partner of the PM. The articles may be about him but the only interest in his role as the PMs partner. -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment To add to my deletion rationale, I would ask this question: What happens if the PM and the subject break up and the PM finds a new partner? Do each of the PMs future dates get an article? When do we deem a relationship of the PM to be serious enough that the partner requires an article? -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wow, that is rude, they are living together, and they have been together for four years. If that were the case I would have to ask, with divorce rates at 50% should we stop including the husbands/wives however notable because they might get divorced? -- Brett Samuel\talk 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)