Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Gibb

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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Gibb[edit]

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

Only real claim to fame is being the mother of the Gibbs Brothers. Notability is not inherited. TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO on own merits. Just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it's notable. The article refers to the subject in the context of her famous sons. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no genuine reason has been given for deletion. WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY. Her notability derives from being related to these popular musicians; the deletion request should be framed by WP:GNG looking at coverage and/or WP:BLP regarding WP:LOWPROFILE, but WP:NOTINHERITED is definitely WP:NOTPOLICY. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that makes, a pair of articles, one for each parent, and then of course four more pages, one for each of the grandparents...8? 16? 32?...as I clearly meant, no independant claim to notability.23:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)TheLongTone (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NOTPOLICY is not a policy and states as much in the summary. It's plainly obvious what the nominator means. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the fallacy that by WP:NOTINHERITED inevitably leads to a violation of WP:NOTEVERYTHING - it doesn't. The less of a relationship a potential subject (in this case Barbara Gibb) has with important subjects, the less important the potential subject is. Parents (Hugh and Barbara) possibly notable, grandparents (Hugh Gibb, Edith Yardley; Ernest Pass, Mary Ann Crompton) less so and maybe not enough to cross the magic threshold into notability. The great-grandparents almost certainly didn't live long enough to coexist with their great-grandchildren. The point still stands, no reason was actually given for deletion. You can't use the circular argument that WP:NOTPOLICY means WP:NOTPOLICY is voided for not being policy and therefore can quote WP:NOTINHERITED essay as being policy, that's even more fallacious. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are being witlessly pedantic, and run the risk of making like the fabulous oozlum-woozlum bird. The rationale for the nomination is clear, even if it is not put in appropriate wikipedia jargon or approved phraseology.TheLongTone (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that pedantic possibly, but when someone's passionately spent quite an effort researching and presenting this material, I think being pedantic is necessary. Witless? Please, tht's just a baseless personal attack, but fortunately for you my sense of humour is strong enough to laugh at your pathetic attempts to change the subject. Let's go back to the beginning, how does this article violate the terms of WP:GNG; in particular is there any lack of coverage? Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, come now. Read the text. I was not saying you were witless: I was so describing your pedantry. And read the other text: it's all about the BG's, all the refs are about the BeeGees apart from one article on a BeeGees fansite about...you will never guess...The Mother of the BeeGees. Knock me down with a feather. Somebody has taken the time to write this article because he is an obsessive who has run out of bee gees B-sides and out-takes to create articles about.TheLongTone (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. But they didn't cite WP:NOTINHERITED, they cited WP:BIO, which is an official guideline, and contains this section which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." Also, you say "You can't use the circular argument that WP:NOTPOLICY means WP:NOTPOLICY is voided for not being policy", except that WP:NOTPOLICY specifically invokes itself as an example: "It is not a good idea to quote essays—including this one—as though they are Wikipedia approved policy." (emphasis mine) Just above, it also says "Essays and proposals should only be cited as opinion or advice, not admonishment." In other words, they (including both WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTPOLICY itself) should be used to aid in understanding, not as blunt instruments with which to pummel people in a debate. — Gwalla | Talk 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO (and doesn't qualify as any of the categories that have more specific criteria; if you count her claimed singing career, that clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, as it doesn't even appear to be WP:verifiable—the article even hedges by only saying she's described as such in Bee Gees literature). That isn't an essay, btw, it's an official guideline. Doesn't even meet WP:GNG really: no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, just some stuff from brothersgibb.com (hardly third-party) and passing mentions in the context of her sons. The only source that would seem at first glance to qualify is the Fox News article "Gibb matriarch loses third son with Robin's death", but the headline is misleading; if you read it, it's actually about the deaths of the brothers and barely talks about her at all. — Gwalla | Talk 19:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Headline says it all: she is not "Barbara Gibb": she is the "mother of the Bee Gees".TheLongTone (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per WP:BIO, relationships do not confer notability, the subject doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Now, if assuming that this article is about a singer then it clearly crashes at WP:MUSIC. Hitro talk 20:28, 4 January 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.