Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Mathieson

Add links
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. Sufficient sources for notability. We have always included spouse of heads of state & usually of heads of government DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Mathieson[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Comment. Being "successful" or being a "millionaire" don't necessarily make one notable; being the Prime Minister's spouse does. Denis Thatcher was made a baronet, so that his and Margaret's son could inherit a knighthood - but had he not been Margaret's husband, would he ever have got that honour? Very unlikely, imho. Would Michelle Obama ever have got an article had she not been married to Barack? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*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)[reply]

  • Keep has appeared in several major newspaper articles as the major topic, surpassing WP:N. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • This is a silly argument. He's the partner of the PM. As such, he's the subject of interest - and not in passing, since there's already been several profiles of him in the press. He's just as notable as Rein, and any other spouse of a PM bar Enid Lyons. Rebecca (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett.Samuel (talk •(UTC)contribs) [reply]
  • Comment. This seems to miss the point to the objections. You state "should we stop including the husbands/wives however notable". If they were notable e.g. Rein, then it wouldn't matter if they were the former spouse of a PM. See also: WP:NOTINHERITED --Ari (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010
  • This is a ridiculous argument - every former spouse of Australia, including Rein, inherited their notability from their partners, with the exception of Enid Lyons who later became an MP. Rein's article would have been speedy deleted if she weren't Rudd's wife. Rebecca (talk) 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how notability could be established. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is plainly established - he's been the subject of several profiles in his own right, and that's only going to continue. There's already an abundance of reliable sources, and the recent trend in the past few weeks towards deletion arguments that make literally no sense does the project absolutely no favours. He's as notable as everyone who's come before him. Rebecca (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources that really discuss the subject in his own right apart from his wife. All I see is, "This guy who is the husband of the prime minister is a hairdresser and a fine fellow." If the above commenter is correct, and substantive profiles of him will be written in the future, then we can revisit it at that time.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is not what I said. I said substantive profiles of him have been written. Read the bleeding papers. Rebecca (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I refuse to vote until I know what Jimbo, Mimi and Tim himself think about this article. After all their views are worth more than all of ours, especially the views of any Australians. 60.224.211.247 (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is the signifigant other of a world leader and thus will only come further into play and notability- so if he is deleted he will shortly be notable and then there will be another discussion over a hasty deletion Masterknighted (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Julia Gillard. Notability is not inherited and there is not enough info available for stand-alone article, but redirects are cheap. Location (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above comment by Location.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as Australia's first male partner of a head of government. The coverage in reliable sources is more than significant: [1], [2], including being appointed as a "men's health ambassador" by the Commonwealth Government [3]. So he meets the GNG in spades. "Notability is not inherited", which comes from an essay not any formal guidance let alone policy, gets a little silly when we start deleting articles about people who are the subject of international news articles.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. Notable as Australia's first male partner of a head of government. There has been difficulty in the Gillard article trying to describe her "marital" status. It is inevitable that her partner be mentioned there. Without this article, much more detail about Mathieson would be required in the Gillard article, and that would make him appear to be even more notable. I came here and found that he has changed jobs from the one the mass media seems to be largely reporting. Without this article, that information would need to be in Gillard's article, and I don't think anyone here wants that. This article is sloppy and needs much work, but it must remain. HiLo48 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is appropriate that the entry for the de facto husband of a prime minister is retained and further developed over time. That said, some of the content is potentially scandalous and its veracity should be ensured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peewee2007 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most definitely, now that his paramor is the Prime Minister of Australia. Prior to 24 June, the case would have been much weaker (we have no article on Tania Costello, for example; but if Peter Costello had ever made it to the Lodge, does anyone seriously believe we would not have had an article on his wife?). Janette Howard, Annita van Iersel, Hazel Hawke, Tamie Fraser and all the rest became notable through their husbands - or, more to the point, through the high office that their husbands attained. None of these ladies would be known at all - AT ALL - if it were not for who they married and how high they rose. If it's fair enough for them, it's fair enough for Tim Mathieson. So they're not married; so what? It's not exactly unknown for married people to separate. Therese Rein may well have become notable through her own work, maybe not; but that's been overtaken by events, viz. she married KR. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First Partner of Australia. Notable paramours of world leaders are notable; see Madame Pompadour, Camilla Parker-Bowles, Monica Lewinski. "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." Bearian (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mkativerata and others. Meets WP:N, that's enough for me. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—notable because he is the first male partner of an Australian head of government. Airplaneman ✈ 03:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that there's been sufficient coverage of Mathieson over the last few years to get him across the WP:BIO threshold, albeit not by much. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, having read every comment on this page, and WP:NOTINHERITED which states: "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." He is a figure of clear public interest in Australia, and possible the rest of the world. Donama (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long term partner of the PM ensures notability Porturology (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Long term? Orderinchaos 10:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we have articles on other Prime Ministerial spouses like Annita van Iersel who are more low-profile than Mathieson, and their existance does not seem to be particularly controversial. Given that Mathieson is the first male to find himself in that position, I also think that the existing volume of coverage on him can only increase. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:N; has been the subject of numerous reports already, and is certain to be the subject of even more in the future (and that's not WP:CRYSTAL, that's WP:COMMONSENSE). Frickeg (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a snow at this point. "Notability is not inherited" doesn't mean that people who have a connection to other famous people can't possibly be notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The partner of Australia's prime minister, the first male partner of a prime minister and quite likely to be involved in at least some or another major event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.198.101 (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 110.33.198.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Orderinchaos 10:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a desire by the public to acquire knowledge about the partner of the Prime Minister, as can be reflected by the number of hits on the page. If there is a need, Wiki should provide the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb redelman (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia is not the Who's Who. Orderinchaos 10:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't matter why people are notable - they are all grist to our mill. To exclude material on opinionated grounds would not be neutral. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BIO. The previous spouses have articles because charity and other such work comes as par for the course as First Lady and they became very notable (especially Hazel Hawke) in those roles. Therese Rein, Margaret Whitlam and Lady Sonia McMahon were independently notable even without the first lady status. Orderinchaos 10:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone pointed out WP:NOTINHERITED specifically does not apply to this situation. And secondly, the examples you use don't make sense - Therese Rein was a millionaire businessperson with no other claims to notability. Sonia McMahon was an occupational therapist. We'd speedy their articles if they hadn't been married to a PM, but since, like Mathieson, they were the partner of a PM, they were notable, and thus we have articles on them. Rebecca (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No where near noteworthy and lacking marital status. 121.217.96.246 (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 121.217.96.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They do have marital status, not that of ceremonial marriage, but by Australian law they are considered spouses. See common law marriage and domestic partnership#Australia. Donama (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (very) many reliable sources clearly establishing what we call 'notability' - the fact that her sister is also notable should indeed be irrelevant, but we don't (yet) have a 'one per family' policy. (wait.... that last bit may have been intended for a previous discussion... maybe delete would be better? dunno - ask Jimbo ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good call, Private. Tim has a DUI conviction too, so maybe he will call Jimbo? WWGB (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability cannot be established and there is no lawful relationship between the two. Романов (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked as a sock. Orderinchaos 13:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "No lawful relationship"? Catch up Romanov, it's the 21st century. WWGB (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - non lawful: It is not seen as a legal relationship between the two to my knowledge (or for what I can find). Have they filed domestic partnership with the ATO? Романов (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As you most likely already know, their relation is simply a common law marriage which is called 'de-facto' or 'partner' in Australia. This has the same legal implications for the couple. It's truly opinionated to say assume a common law relationship is "not good enough" to establish his notability as spouse of the prime minister. I'd be surprised if Gillard and Mathieson hadn't declared themselves to be domestic partners to the ATO given Gillard wouldn't want to risk being accused of tax evasion. Donama (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: De facto relationships have legal status in Australia - official government forms include "de facto" as an option alongside other designations of relationship status, de factor partners of citizens can apply to migrate on the basis of the de facto relationship, etc. roughtheory.org (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that the sheer volume of people who can say who Mathieson is, on either side of this debate have really proved the point that is is worth keeping the Mathieson article. Brett.Samuel\talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.187.102 (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dennis Thatcher had notability in his own right. I can't see any for this case other than by association. He merits a mention in the PM's article, but not one of his own. Peridon (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is in accordance to Wikipedia policy and have validity due to recent events and maintains the articles on Australian Prime Minister's Partners.Liberalcynic (talk) 14:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person is notable.....there is interest in who he is and various articles about him in the media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.119.127 (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 115.64.119.127 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The spouse of the head of government is treated in many countries as a formal, if unelected, role, expected to fulfill specific public and symbolic functions, and is therefore a public figure in their own right, even if they gained this public status through their relationship to their spouse. They will attract public curiosity, making an article useful and in service of a common need for more information. roughtheory.org (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd just like to reiterate that WP:NOTINHERITED specifically states that the first lady/first man of a country is considered notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to point out that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy or a guideline. The applicable guideline in WP:BIO is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria (which incidentally does not have a catchy quick link pointing to it). Not everyone agrees with the aformention exception that you noted, otherwise it would probably appear in the relevant guideline and not just the essay. Location (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above comment by Location.--137.122.49.102 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.51.116 (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The comment by Location was that there was not enough material. Three days ago that was probably true, but not any longer. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Npepperell, he's notable here. Also they're self-declared as de facto and co-habitant, both of which have legal recognition here, not that it would matter. Any long term boyfriend of the prime minister would be notable once they started accompanying the PM to functions etc but Tim has been assigned the usual goodwill ambassador roles (beyondblue, mens health, shed association) so he's clearly occupying the customary role. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this discussion is crazy. He is the Prime Minister's de-facto husband by law, end of story. Claiming that status is not significant shows bias against those who do not wish to, or can not, marry under the marriage act. 124.168.189.178 (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 124.168.189.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First Gentleman of Australia. Can't believe it's even being suggested he's not notable. 124.148.143.23 (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 124.148.143.23 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please comment on the nomination, not the nominator. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point? WWGB (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant to post this about the person one keep vote up who wrote that the nominator was biased against people who hadn't married - sorry for the mix up. I agree with the SPA tags. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individuals can become notable because of personal relations that bring them to public attention - another non-married case that springs to mind is Levi Johnston. Mathieson's profile has invariably only risen in the last week but has now become notable because of the position he is in. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as per the recent Mimi MacPherson decision, to quote Jimbo Our guideline is clear that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. " (See WP:BIO#Family.). Gnangarra 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • #1 that AfD was closed effectively as no consensus, default to delete (due to request for deletion) #2 The keep side was stronger both in policy (IMO) and numbers (by count), so the NC close was a stretch to begin with. #3 We don't rule by "Jimbo said", and even then "in itself" is less than clear. #4 He meets WP:N by a good measure. May I suggest you put Michelle Obama up for deletion if you feel this strongly about it? She's clearly only notable at this point due to her husband. I'd say she's top 1% of all BLPs notable due to that relationship, but you seem to be claiming that if notability (that is coverage) only exists due to that relationship the article should be deleted no matter that the subject meets WP:N or not. Michelle Obama would be a great test of that theory. If you are claiming something else, could you explain? Hobit (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about you put Michelle Obama up for deletion? Most of the arguments to keep in this discussion are vaguely based around WP:WAX but at least you are brave enough to state it explicitly. Comparing Mathieson with Michelle Obama is nonsensical: Obama played a leading role in her husband's election campaign over a significant period of time and the role of First Lady in the US is a formally structured role in the US. Mathieson has not played a role in public life anything like Michelle Obama and there is no formal (or even informal) First Lady (or Bloke!) office in Australia - and if there was one, it would be a better fit with the partner of the Governor-General. Some partners of political leaders have participated in public life - such as Michelle Obama - some have not - such as Mathieson. I am not pointing that to criticise Mathieson, but merely stating a fact. You would be better served making an argument as to why Mathieson is notable rather than arguing that Michelle Obama is notable as no one is disputing that. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Conversely, how about making an argument as to why you think Mathieson specifically is not notable, rather than making a nonsensical argument about anyone whose notability is inherited from their partners not being notable? This might cause people to give your arguments some sway, instead of making you look pretty bloody silly when they point out why your argument is illogical. Rebecca (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because that deletion was based on [[WP::BIO#Family]] which says "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. ". Mathieson is not independently notable. Gnangarra 09:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mimi Machpherson was deleted specifically because she herself requested deletion. The closing editor was clear that, had that not been the case, the article would most likely have been kept.Minnowtaur (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment did you read them, they are Marshmellow pieces they are about Gillard getting a blow job at 4:30 am to make her ready for TV talk shows. Gnangarra 03:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's not at all misogynist. Rebecca (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes, I did read them, otherwise I wouldn't have linked them. It doesn't look like you read them, though, considering two of them barely mention hairdressing and refer instead to completely separate business dealings. Either way, even if they were puff pieces they would still amount to significant (and, I might add, international) coverage, and it hasn't even been a week since the leadership change. Frickeg (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean blow dry, or not?--Mkativerata (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'comment Yes, there is much garbage, and the tabloid media and womens mags will only get worse, but there was some criticism of his employment by a strong Israeli rights campaigner. Obviously only an issue because of his connection with Gillard. Politicians and pillow talk has long made partners of many kinds an issue. Not quite the same seriousness with models and porn star sisters. HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable in his own right, but I think that "first lady" or whatever the Australian term is, are transferably notable. Shadowjams (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The position of Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia is notable enough to warrant an article itself, and all living holders of that title have articles themselves (in fact you have to go back to the second world war to find one who doesn't). We shouldn't be confusing the questions of "would he be notable if it weren't for Gillard" and "is he notable". StuartH (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Mathieson&oldid=1138872801"