Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Toogood Smith

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 June 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Toogood Smith[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

For reasons that still haven't been completely figured out, random unnotable relatives of John Lennon have "Good" articles based on anecdotes derived from 2 books that have absolutely nothing to do with them, namely The Beatles – The Biography by Bob Spitz and Many Years From Now by Barry Miles. Now my question is, what did this George Toogood Smith person do of note? Being John Lennon's uncle by marriage? Notability is not inherited. Take the Beatles book out of this article and what do you even have–2 Daily Mail "sources" (that website is BANNED on here) and a picture of his house. This is unacceptable. Trillfendi (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In-depth coverage from reliable sources is always acceptable, even if it is in a book primarily about another topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, but still, no notability was derived from it at any rate. Trillfendi (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person was not some random relative of John Lennon. He was Lennon's father figure for about ten years and Lennon lived in his home. He helped educate and shape the personality and world view of one of the most famous musicians of the 20th century. Oh, feel free to remove the Daily Mail stuff. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a father figure to a future famous person is not notability. WP:NOTINHERITED. Trillfendi (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read that essay carefully, because it seems to me that you may misunderstand it. You are correct that an assertion by a Wikipedia editor that someone was a "father figure" to someone exceptionally famous is not a legitimate claim of notability. That is definitely not the case here. Every serious biography of John Lennon discusses this man as a major influence on Lennon. It is significant coverage in reliable sources that makes a topic notable, and that applies to this case. There is a reason that there is no Wikipedia biography about his biological father Alfred Lennon. Smith was a much greater and more notable influence on John Lennon than his actual father Alfred. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention that.... Until about 2 weeks ago, Alfred Lennon had a Featured Article on this website until someone had the good sense to merge. It’s madness really. Trillfendi (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "madness" is, in my opinion, highly idiosyncratic, and radically different from mine. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madness is giving good article or featured article status to family members of famous people just because they existed, when merging was the only reasonable and logical feat to begin with. There are editors on this website who really believe that people deserve articles because they want to know more about their “idols” and that by deleting, merging, or delisting from Good Article status it’s an insult to their idol and makes them “less important.” Someone actually said that shit. It’s like Beatles mania clouds critical thought on here for many people. So yes, madness indeed. Trillfendi (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Obvious keep~~. Extensively covered in The Beatles literature as a major influence on John Lennon. Official "Good Article" of Wikipedia. GA-Class in WikiProject Biography. GA-Class and Mid-importance in The Beatles WP. gidonb (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Being a Good Article doesn’t prevent deletion. Though people usually decide to merge instead. 2) Extensive “coverage” in Beatles literature does not equate to notability. Look at this article. It literally just says a farmer got married (two paragraphs—wow), happened to be the fun uncle to a future famous person, and died. Where. Is. The. Notability. Is it in this anecdote Smith taught the four-year-old Lennon to read by reading out loud the headlines of the Liverpool Echo,[16] read him nursery rhymes at night, and later taught Lennon how to solve crossword puzzles. or this one: Smith often took Lennon and his cousins to the cinema or the park, even though he worked at night and early in the morning on the farm and his milk round. When the cousins played outside Smith allowed them to eat meals with their hands in the garden shed.? Trillfendi (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. You point out that good articles hardly ever get deleted. Since this is correct, I'm changing my opinion from obvious keep (now struck through) to speedy keep. As you evidently understood that this is a baseless and chanceless nomination, the very nomination of this article instead of a proposal for a merger (which you perceived to have a chance) is a deliberate waste of everyone's time. That warrants speedy keep rather than obvious keep. Neglected in your response is that I also pointed out that this article is of mid-importance (!!!) to The Beatles Project. That should have again made you pause and think, beyond the much-deserved quality grades and recognition for this article, about whether this nomination is a good idea or a waste of community resources for WP:POINT. 2. Extensive coverage in central Beatles literature does in fact carry an article across the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that good articles can get deleted (any article can get deleted) but the better choice leads to merging. Reading comprehension. And mid-importance in a project is no barometer, I’m sure Alfred Lennon’s article was of much, much higher importance as a featured article before his was merged. And you see what happened.... (And it’s amazing how an article went from feautred to having only 2 mentions in the merged article. Telling, really.) If “he took his nephew to the movies” is notability then no wonder nobody takes this website seriously. Trillfendi (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trillfendi, if you truly believe that "nobody takes this website seriously", then please stop wasting your time by making disruptive deletion nominations. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of taking everything literally (Wikipedia is not a reliable source outside of Wikipedia. Brain—use it. Why would I even be an editor who’s created 95 articles if I didn’t see an implicit value in this website), look at what was actually said, which is George Toogood did nothing notable instead of being related to John Lennon by marriage and live in the same house. You can’t prove notability beyond that. No amount of anecdotes in Beatles biographies will do that either. Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those "anecdotes", if part of books issued by reliable publishers, are the significant coverage that establishes notability on Wikipedia, and an article that summarizes such sources is legitimate. There are far more available sources about this person than now appear in the article, as shown by a Google Books search. If you do not believe that "nobody takes this website seriously", then please do not say so in community discussions. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find useful information in nominator's responses. Just the usual distractions. gidonb (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome to disagree, Gidonb. It’s just ironic that your comment isn’t “useful” either. Trillfendi (talk) 05:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLUDGEON. You are first submitting an admittedly unnecessary procedure, then constantly bludgeoning under the opinion of each individual person participating in this discussion, maximizing the damage that you can cause to Wikipedia and showing here and elsewhere blatant disrespect for community decisions, procedures, and members in word choice and endless arguments. This is why I'm at speedy keep and doubling down on speedy keep! gidonb (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t care what your personal issue is toward me, that’s best left on a user talk page, but it has no logical correlation with a vote to keep. If your vote is based on opinion of notability by relation to Lennon though, we agree to disagree. Like I said, you have the right to disagree with the deletion proposal; it doesn’t change why I did it or why this is technically the second one. And you don’t control how I type. Trillfendi (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with the constant bludgeoning at so many pages. That is disruptive behavior and needs to be addressed elsewhere. Focusing ONLY on this page, the fact that you submit by your own submission a chanceless proposal, probably for WP:POINT, then keep bludgeoning, leads me to speedy keep. The speedy is important as you indicate that this has no chance and because of the damage to the Wikipedia community as long as this is open. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not being worthy or whatever of being a good article is not grounds for deletion. Why was this even nominated for deletion besides personal angst? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently you can’t differentiate between lack of notability expressed in this article and what some editor decided to promote it to 10 years ago before retiring from Wikipedia. Nobody ever said being a good article was grounds for deletion. Apparently 13 years ago, when the article had a different name, there was no consensus on keeping. Trillfendi (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well today there does appear to be a clear consensus on notability. Il repeat a point that was made above because I think you might have missed it "Those "anecdotes", if part of books issued by reliable publishers, are the significant coverage that establishes notability on Wikipedia,” please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG before nominating more pages for deletion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gidonob, Cullen and Horse Eye Jack Lubbad85 (☎) 15:17, 29 April 2019 (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.