Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Attenborough

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Attenborough[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If John wasn't the brother of two very famous siblings, I doubt he would even have had an obituary article in his local paper. As a manager for Alpha Romeo this is a quite normal (though worthy) career, hardly of great note. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. It's not our role to question the reasons why the sources cover the subject in such detail. Andrew (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still our job to question whether there is any substance to the coverage. Sionk (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided pass WP:SIGCOV and so we have adequate substance to support an article. Andrew (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason why an article that has been on this site since 2012 should be nominated for deletion just because someone noticed the article on the day the man's brother died.--Maarten1963 (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, articles that don't get noticed generally don't get nominated at AfD. It's a strange argument for keeping it, all the same. Sionk (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. Take away his brothers and he's simply a motoring executive. LibStar (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with motoring executives? The subject was a managing director and so of high rank. We have numerous other subjects of this sort - see category:Chief executives in the automobile industry, category:People in the automobile industry and category:Corporate executives in the automobile industry. To say that such people are intrinsically less worthy than actors and directors does not seem to be a neutral POV. Andrew (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst it is true that he is really of interest only because of his siblings people referencing them may well want information on the third brother. Therefore it should stay. Sarah1923 25/8/2014

Delete Libstar is spot on, notability is not inherited. I don't see how being a motor industry executive is, in this case, notable. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he has two illustrious brothers is noteworthy in itself. It may be of significant interest to people what the third brother did. Additionally he did have an obituary in the newspapers and the sources demonstrate notability.

Keep His family notwithstanding, his professional life as the national head of Alfa Romeo and his position at Mann Egerton merits an article. Coinmanj (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTINHERITED. Every reference I find prominently mentions his brothers. There are only two newspaper articles about him specifically. In one, he is "in the shadow of his famous family" and "has spent a lifetime trying to stay out of the limelight." The other's just a relatively short obituary in a small newspaper (circulation 33K). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the subject of substantive coveragee, merely a brother. Hekerui (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. NPOV. With two famous brothers, our readers may want to know more about him, so why not provide it? Edwardx (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "our readers may want to know more about him, so why not provide it?"... why not provide it in the relevant personal life/family section? WP:NOTINHERITED again! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave well alone and provide it just as we do? Notice that over 40,000 readers looked at the page yesterday - a huge number which makes it one of our most popular pages currently. If it works, don't fix it! Andrew (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a typical few days, quite clearly, Richard Attenborough got 400,000 views! The views for John Attenborough are normally a tiny fraction of the overal views for his brothers. For example the David Attenborough article alone normally gets around 2000 views a day, Dickie got 1500, John got around 100. Sionk (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still that is a considerable number of views. About 6000 people a month would miss it, based on January of this year. On popularity alone it should be kept, it seems daft to delete a page with such popularity. Also managing director of Mann Egerton deserves a mention. Mrjulesd (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing for a WP:INHERITED notability, because no doubt a small proportion of people interested in his brothers will be curious to click his bluelink. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. I'm not arguing on behalf of his relationship to his brothers. I'm arguing on behalf of the popularity of this page, as well as his career. There is a subtle difference I feel you've overlooked. Popularity of pages I feel should make the subject notable. It suggest public interest. Public interest makes subjects notable. Also his career makes him notable, IMHO. Mrjulesd (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're effectively saying that, because he has a Wikipedia page, he's notable. I'm saying he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page, in which instance any Wikipedia page views would cease and extinguish his inherited notability. Sionk (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm saying (a) there seems to be public interest in him (b) his career is notable. You said "I'm saying he shouldn't have a Wikipedia page, in which instance any Wikipedia page views would cease" that's true of any page on wikipedia. Mrjulesd (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His job as Alpha Romeo Manager makes him notable. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alfa Romeo isn't a big manufacturer (64K total in Europe in 2013), and sales in the UK would be a fraction of that, and manager isn't a high-profile job. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no notability criterion which gives automatic notability for having an executive role for a car manufacturer. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the user who created this article in 2012. Of course, I am aware that this doesn't mean anything. I'm just informing everyone. But I think the page should be kept for this reason: although his career, his relation to his brothers, and the popularity of the page are not strong arguments individually for keeping the page, I think that, if you combine all three reasons (popularity of the page, relation to his brothers, and his career), then it adds up to a pretty good case for notability. As an analogy, there was recently a song that was #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the United States, despite not being #1 in airplay, sales, or streaming. However, the fact that it did moderately well in all three categories allowed it to reach the #1 spot on the chart. Likewise, although John Attenborough's famous brothers, his career, and the popularity of the article are not good reasons for keeping the article, if the three of them are combined, it creates an impressive case for inclusion. So I vote Keep. The cumulative effect of the aforementioned three factors has earned this man notability on Wikipedia, at least in my opinion. SuperHero2111 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERITED does not call for us to discount or second-guess sources satisfying GNG requirements simply because we don't believe a subject should be notable. Cf almost every article subject including "Kardashian" in the title. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. I think the purpose of WP:NOTINHERITED is it is an argument to AVOID in notability discussions, not a basis for denying WP:GNG. Mrjulesd (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by brothers alone Rotovia (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

refer WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all things being equal, being COO of Rolls-Royce must count for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.