Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Dwire

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 per improvements in the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Dwire[edit]

Thoroughly non-notable individual on his own, the third husband of Bill Clinton's mother. The article has scratches of information that we would never consider encyclopedic for people who are not tangently related to a famous person, and does not have enough content to be balanced in a way that is required to be NPOV. As he is deceased, and nothing has been written about him aside from being mentioned (like every other minor family member, business associate, neighbor, friend of the family and casual acquaintance) in Bill's book; we will likley never get the kind of balancing encyclopedic content that would be needed to make this article acceptable. Of course, it would likely still not be notable then, either. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited. He has no notability outside of having once been married to Bubba's mother. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete He was married to Slick Willy's mom. Notability is not inherited. Undeath (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Dgf32 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, close enough to Bill Clinton that someone might want some information on the guy. He is mentioned outside of Bill's book [1], and I'm sure some other information could be found with a little digging. Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, aside from inheriting notability from Bill Clinton, mentioned in a published book, Time Magazine, on CNN, etc. Even a car he bought played a visible role in the 1992 election and is on display. Anyway, I began an expanded reference section: [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Will look for and likely add even more. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not in herited. Being "mentioned in" does not count. The sources have to be "about" him. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The cnn source about the family bio is just that, a family bio. I don't see anything in any of the sources that constitute notability for Jeff. Undeath (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything in deletion votes that mock a historical figure ("Slick Willy" and "Bubba") as academic or serious rationales for removing information about a relative of that subject that obviously some editor thought worthy enough to create an article for. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and many others believe that notability can be inherited (hence the link, so it's clear that it's not just my take). A stepfather of a president, whose wife is currently running for president, is a potential subject that researchers will be interested in reading about. I'll see if I can find additional sources. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Bubba" and "Slick willy" are nicknames for Bill Clinton. There is nothing bad about stating the names. It would have been a different story if Bill's article was up for deletion, in which the nicknames would be in bad taste. Undeath (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are critical nicknames of him, which suggest a dislike of him and could be perceived as a reason to want articles associated with him removed rather than a legitimate policy based reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say they are critical, I say they are funny. Just wondering, how is "bubba" critical? Undeath (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical or funny...they are not serious and weaken arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we can cull enough information from various sources to write a reasonably informative article, then it shouldn't matter if he hasn't been the primary subject of any particular source. He was the president's stepfather, not some random schmuck, and it's very likely someone could want this information. Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: Significant figure in two notable biographies: [6], My Life (Bill Clinton autobiography); frequent mentions in news and books, including giving advice to both Clinton politicians, e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]; note that the mother's name is often emphasized as "Virginia Cassidy Blythe Clinton Dwire Kelley" (esp. by Hillary Clinton, e.g., [17]) and the current article provides additional info. on the reason for a part of that lengthy sequence. JJL (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JJL, I strongly urge you to incoporate some of these references into the article. I added a few myself, but the above references could help. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Those articles still do not assert notabiliy. The car link is the stangest one to me. How does a car make someone notable? He didn't invent it. Also, just because Virginia included his name into hers does not make him notable. The sources given do not write directly about him. They give passing information about what he did and who he was, but none of them make him notable under the guidelines. Undeath (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Appearance in multiple sources demonstrates notability and if his car played a major role in a presidential election for a security council, nuclear armed, G8 country and is even on museum display, it's worth noting and an article can be built from these sources. The article prior to nomination had problems that I believe Jerry reasonably expressed in his nomination, but since nomination and in the course of but minutes, the article has expanded with additional references and information. Let's give JJL a chance to use those other references he pointed to above to see if he can improve the article even further and I would have to say that in a worse case scenario information should at least be merged and the article redirected without deleting as someone reading the books may want to learn more about this man and come to our site doing a search. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. From the comments above and article references this article scrapes through the WP:Notability criteria. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale expressed by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the material available collectively satisfies our biography guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability isn't biggest or best, its noted by the media, and having all the facts come from reliable multiple sources. This meets the test. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has now been clearly established. As a general rule of thumb, US Presidential Biography is a subject of interest to many academics, journalists, political observers. As such, there's an extremely high probability that the parents of presidents will have multiple independent reliable sources that have detailed their lives and in fact, multiple texts have been written on the significance of presidential families, etc. The second-guessing of reliable sources, with regards to presidential relatives, reflects badly on the project. It makes us look ridiculous to people interested in this subject matter. When we can be nearly guaranteed that multiple, independent reliable sources exist, it is best to tag for clean-up (or quickly find the sources yourself) rather than send to AFD. --JayHenry (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayHenry, with whom I could not agree more. Subject is overwhelmingly worthy of encyclopedic note, and we do our readers a huge disservice to second guess them in this way. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2008 (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.