Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim and Mary McCartney (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Major issues considered here were WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:SIGCOV. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and Mary McCartney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Jim and Mary McCartney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have not felt comfortable about this article for a long time, and have described it as "like a Daily Mail gossip piece that has no place on an encyclopedia". I'm a longtime Beatles fan but I find the whole article creepy and intrusive, with excessive personal detail. Although it is assessed as a GA, and it (at least superficially) seems to be covered by reliable sources, it deals with two people who are not notable in their own right, and never particularly wanted to be, and the entire prose talks about two people without mentioning anything important or significant about them specifically, which every other notable biography does. The problem is, that Beatles biographies cover just about everything remotely connected to the group, so it's possible to build up a reliably sourced document of these people, without considering the due weight in the sources; which only cover them in the context of their children. Of the main sources used, I am not a fan of Barry Miles' book, which seems to be far too pro-Paul McCartney to be considered reliable and authoritative. I don't know much about Bob Spitz, but reviews suggest he brings a fresh view to the proceedings, which in turns suggests he probably shouldn't be cited excessively without another source to hand.

The article was recently reassessed for GA, with several editors complaining that the article wasn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia, full stop. The assessment was closed on procedural grounds that challenging notability of a topic should come here. So have at it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I just want to point out to other people—for some reason this was lost in translation—that I wasn’t trying to delete via GA reassessment (I don’t even know why that has to be explained), I was simply trying to get this piece of trash delisted from GA status and pointed out that none of these sources, if you could even call them that, in the article contribute to independent notability. I would have settled for merging then, but these people just aren’t relevant enough to have that much space to begin with. They aren’t royalty. Their family history and backgrounds are simply not important by association. They never contributed anything themselves to popular culture worth having every sneeze, cough, and meal documented in this unprofessional manner. Trillfendi (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator here – these people are not notable; their son is. It's nearly entirely sourced to two biographies of Paul McCartney. It's typical for book-length biographies to also cover the subject's close relatives but that doesn't mean they're notable too unless people decide to do scholarship on them specifically. Anything important about the two is with respect to Paul, and this becomes undue weight to have so much detail about his childhood and relationship – That's what the long booksare for, and Wikipedia's purpose is not to copy everything the books' authors want to mention. (To comment on Trillfendi's phrasing: Royalty aren't automatically notable either, they still require substantive dedicated sources to have their own articles too!)Reywas92Talk 19:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John? Where does John come into this? --Qwfp (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed typo, had John Lennon in my head for some reason apparently. Reywas92Talk 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I closed the Good Article reassessment. It wasn't so much a procedural closing as one that ignored the notability objections (I still took into account the sourcing and copyvio concerns). It just happened that most of the discussion focused on the notability. I am sure the closer of this discussion will likewise ignore any keeps based solely on the fact that it is classified as "good". AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Take a look at Template:Paul McCartney family; this article isn't the only one of its kind. If we delete this article, shouldn't many of the articles on Paul McCartney's family members also be nominated for AfD? — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heather McCartney is pretty marginal, but the rest appear to have established notable careers of their own, with a variety of substantive sources dedicated to them. Quite the Otherstuffexists there. Reywas92Talk 04:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably the only other person in that family who has developed their own independent notability without question is Stella. As far as I’m concerned the rest can go too, especially James McCartney who literally relies on Daily Mail (last I checked that website was banned on here) “articles” and Beatles fan blogs. The more things change the more they stay the same, I guess. Trillfendi (talk) 06:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
James should redirect to his dad's article. Meanwhile, Francie Schwartz is described as "an American scriptwriter", but the article spends most of its time documenting her affair / relationship with McCartney in a seriously WP:BLP violating manner. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was nominated for deletion before, but the consensus was keep. Parents were mentioned in the media multiple times and received notable coverage from major media sources. See also WP:SPINOUT. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you just said is true or backed up with any evidence. Well, apart from this being the second AfD, which is irrelevant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the hostility towards this article. It doesn't read at all like a "Daily Mail gossip piece" to me and even if it did, that's not a valid basis for deletion. As for "creepy and instrusive"... intrusive to whom? The subjects have been dead for decades. As I said at the GA reassessment, it is not true, as Trillendi keeps saying, that the sourcing is poor - it is primarily based on two Beatles biographies by respected authors (Spitz and Miles) and established mainstream publishers (I disagree with Ritchie's doubting of their reliability). In any case, there are other quality sources available, such as Mark Lewisohn's Tune in, which could be used instead. WP:INHERITED says, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG", and GNG is clearly met here due to the level of attention from reliable sources that the Beatles naturally attract.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Joe never drank alcohol, went to bed at 10 o'clock every night, and the only swear word he used was "Jaysus". Florrie was known as "Granny Mac" in the neighbourhood and was often consulted when families had problems" What on earth is encyclopedic about that? I've read Barry Miles' book all the way through and the pro-McCartney anti-Lennon / Harrison rewriting of history is staggering, particularly where he nitpicks exactly who wrote what Lennon / McCartney credited song. This is why it's barely used on Abbey Road, which I had a large hand in improving to GA. And it's a general notability guideline, not absolute rule - in relative terms, the coverage in sources is "trivial, passing mentions". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Poor writing or unencyclopedic language should just be removed or re-written - it is not a reason to delete the entire article. And there are many sources that cover Jim and Mary McCartney in depth - not "trivial or passing" mentions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I totally agree with the nominator's reasoning – the whole article just reads like an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?... interesting titbits for anyone interested in the subject matter, but fundamentally, the only interest comes from them being related to a celebrity. The subjects are not individually notable at all, their notability is entirely WP:INHERITED from being the parents of their famous sons. Or, to put it another way... would they qualify for a Wikipedia article if their sons hadn't obtained a measure of notability? I can't see how this passes WP:GNG, as the subject for the sources used in the article is Paul McCartney, not his parents. Of course there are reliable sources in existence, being as one of their sons became internationally famous, and any decent biography needs to talk about its subject's background and childhood, but it doesn't make the parents famous if they are mentioned in biographies about their children – the only thing I can see that could possibly count towards their own individual notability is Jim writing a couple of songs that Paul later recorded... and even then, he only recorded them because it was his own father (would they have made it onto record any other way?), and they only made it onto a deluxe CD package of outtakes released more than twenty years later. The argument that "unencyclopedic language should just be removed" – well, almost everything I can see in the article is unencyclopedic, and therefore the arguments for WP:SPINOUT don't apply either, because what would be left are just a few lines which are already included in Paul McCartney#Early life anyway. I don't see a redirect as a solution because Paul McCartney's children James and Mary are probably better known now to the public than his parents, and therefore the more likely search targets – I cannot see a situation where someone would be looking for either Jim or Mary McCartney that wasn't in connection with their son's childhood, instead of for them personally. Richard3120 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above discussion. Mary alone, being the inspiration of the words and the song "Let It Be", has sufficient notability. The page is well sourced (note that the nomination itself calls for more sources when, in actuality in this case, sources are abundant, establishing notability). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A person isn't notable simply for being "an inspiration" for a song, surely... there are many, many examples throughout musical history of songs written about family members or friends, and it doesn't make all those people notable. Richard3120 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since notability isn't inherited and neither are noted for anything of their own merit (meaning something that doesn't have to do with family affiliations). They fail WP:BIO miserably, and most if not all of the quality sources that do mention them are more about their Beatle son Paul. There's also WP:NOTGENEALOGY to take into account, which says "Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic". That most certainly isn't the case here, especially with superfluous things like "Joe never drank alcohol, went to bed at 10 o'clock every night, and the only swear word he used was 'Jaysus'. Florrie was known as 'Granny Mac' in the neighbourhood and was often consulted when families had problems" and excessive detail moving from house to house. Pretty much everything of encyclopedic value is already included in son Paul McCartney's article. We're not supposed to be a Beatles/McCartney fan site. Editors are often overly lenient with keeping articles on family members of famous people. Let's help reduce that by getting rid of unwarranted pages like this one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:SPINOFF, as well as being well sourced, and having already survived one AfD nomination with good arguments that should be taken into consideration for this nomination. I agree there is an abundance of trivial/fan cruft, but feel the solution is paring down content (indeed, there is lots of junk here) rather than outright deletion. Yeah, I get the WP:INHERIT arguments, but consider the intrinsic value of wikipedia by providing articles that assuage a wider public curiosity that comes with one of the most famous persons in the world. Including deep detail on family lineage and parents in the McCartney article would make it unwieldily, so this spin off is appropriate. It’s kind of the same reason we have a separate article on Abraham Lincoln’s mother, who was equally unremarkable on her own. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why does everyone assert that Barry Miles' totally biased book is "well sourced" without any evidence? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was published by Henry Holt Co., a reputable publisher. That's all one can really go on in distinguishing it as a reliable source as opposed to, say, information taken from a fan blog. But even if that single source is problematic, certainly the Lewisohn book can be referenced in an effort to improve the article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Miles's book's POV, but this idea the article is "well-sourced" (here and above) and that that means it should be kept is nonsense. Basically everything relating to Jim and Mary is based only on the Miles and Spitz biographies of Paul; every one of the website sources is a citation to an unrelated fact. [1] cites what Jim's company did. [2] cites what happened in the air raids during WWII. [3] mentions that Paul once used his father's guitar (without even mentioning Jim by name). Six are merely links to Google Maps of mentioned addresses. This article is a prime example of a WP:REFBOMB. Cut your laughable OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nancy Lincoln is discussed in a much wider range of sources and even has some commemorations and places named for her. Reywas92Talk 20:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is a book written WITH the subject of it (Paul) an independent source? This is the bs I was talking about. The fact is, there are no reliable sources on these people. Trillfendi (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"They were the band the Beatles could have been!"
I haven't read Miles' book, but if that features Paul's comments on his own parents, then it most definitely is too closely affiliated with Jim and Mary to be considered an independent source. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, it's Paul discussing his years in the Beatles and devoting a surprising amount of time to what proportion of what song he thought he wrote, including trying to take most of the credit for "Tomorrow Never Knows" on the grounds that he was socialising in the West End, checking out avant garde experimental groups, while John was married with a child in the commuter belt. Wings is reduced to about two pages in the entire book (which probably upsets Alan Partridge). His parents don't get much of a mention, relatively speaking. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read the Miles biography, but my issue here is that if we are going to allow Wikipedia articles for people who clearly aren't notable in their own right, but simply based on the fact they have been mentioned in two or more reliable sources, it's going to open up Wikipedia to biographies of a lot of non-notable people. Presumably we could now create stub articles on the parents of David Bowie or Elton John, based on the multiple biographies that have been written about them? Or perhaps Bowie's half-brother, given that there are at least two Wikipedia articles about songs that refer to him? It wouldn't even have to be a person related to anyone famous – I'm a keen genealogist, and I can think of at least two people on my family tree that would pass the criteria of having been mentioned in multiple reliable, independent sources (newspapers, books), without actually having done anything at all of note to the general public. Saying that there is a public curiosity with family members connected to famous artists is not provable, and sounds like a WP:INTERESTING argument to me. Richard3120 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING is quite a poor argument for keeping, and even if the book by Miles can be seemed trustworthy, it doesn't count towards notability as their son and his comments are too closely affiliated with them to be an independent source. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fascinating AfD and very good nom. This article (and other Beatles-linked fan articles) have no long-term future on WP. The !votes of this AfD versus the last is in keeping with the Beatles' slowly fading mega-notability. However, unlike lesser cases on WP (whose linked articles get deleted faster as WP:FANCRUFT), the still mega-notability of the Beatles gives a halo of protection. This couple is chronicled (and not just a passing mention) in many Beatles/Paul McCartney books and "technical" WP:GNG arguments can be made (I have seen worse on AfD). Given the Beatles still mega-notability, it is fair to give readers access to such an article. "No consensus" will be a fair outcome here, but their inevitable "delete-day" will ultimately approach. Britishfinance (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, if Notability is Not Temporary, does that apply to mega-notability? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is Not Temporary" – come back in 20 years to see the WP BLPs of "youtube stars" (drowning in WP:GNG notability), being AfD'ed. Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to laugh. Significant coverage where? In fan blogs? Trillfendi (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to tell you that the coverage comes not from fan blogs but from books published by major publishing houses?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If referring to the Barry Miles book, then publisher is moot when it's not an independent source when much it is based on their Beatle son's comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The books are about Paul McCartney and the Beatles for crying out loud—NOT Jim and Mary McCartney! Who are simply biographical details. Supporting characters in Paul McCartney’s life story. Use common sense. Trillfendi (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that books focusing on Paul don't really count towards notability on his parents, Trillfendi, I should point out that the so-called "common sense" isn't very common given the wide diversity of people's individual perceptions and senses. That term is therefore a meaningless argument and it's better to instead just focus more on your rationale for why the article is unwarranted or how its referencing is insufficient. See WP:Common sense is not common for more. Telling someone "use common sense" or that something should be done "per common sense" also isn't saying much when those phrases incorrectly presume that the general public shares your senses and thought processes, even if they agree with your stances on certain matters. Something to keep in mind. Anyway, I personally doubt anyone could find a solid independent source (not based on comments from relatives or close friends) that specifically focuses on Jim or Mary as their own people. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense in the obvious context tells you that books about Paul McCartney and / or the Beatles are not books about his parents and notability is not derived from there—because they are not independently notable. If this were the case then why don't Jimi Hendrix's parents have an article? Quincy Jones? Madonna? Outside of said books the only thing people could manage to "find" were from websites called goddammit "magicbeatlestours", "classicbands", "beatlesireland", etc. Google Maps images of their house? Who does that??? There are no actual profiles on these people from independent, reliable music sources because no one would even know they existed had Paul McCartney not become a star. This is absolutely ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this article is to understand the reasons why it should be deleted takes time, effort and an understanding of the subject matter. This is why the opening nomination had to be as good as I would get it, otherwise I'd just get a bunch of drive by nominators saying "keep - lots of sources" without really assessing the situation. I guess that we haven't had so many of those is a step in the right direction. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Mile's book and blogs seems to be a major sticking point because of this article's reliance on them as a sources for more about 80% percent of it's content. Since Wikipedia's mantra is to try to improve an article prior to deletion, if an editor wants to do the work (not me!) then perhaps references can be taken from the following reliable publisher sources which contain deep research on the McCartney Family that are independent of the son's involvement:
Lewisohn, Mark, Tune In: The Beatles: All These Years, Vol. 1 Little, Brown and Company
Norman, Philip, Shout!: The Beatles in their Generation Simon and Shuster
plus the aforementioned Spitz book:
Spitz, Bob, The Beatles: The Biography Little, Brown and Company ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe Spitz's book really has anything to add. The McCartney family is documented on pages 60 - 63 but the prose that could be used to cite facts is basically restricted to Jim's amateur music career, which could be reasonably condensed into a few sentences in Paul's article. I haven't read Philip Norman's book for a while, but it's very old (the group were still musically active when it was written) which is both good for contemporary reporting and bad for not knowing about stuff that didn't fall out of the woodwork until a lot later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are confusing Philip Norman with Hunter Davies, who published the Beatles "authorized" bio in 1968; Philip Norman's book was after Lennon's death. (He also published a full length Paul bio. It could probably be used as a potential source, but I don't think it shed any new light above the deeper, superior research published by Lewisohn, especially regarding the McCartney family genealogy. FWIW, Neither the Hunter Davis book or the Beatles own Anthology project should be used as references; they suffer the same "too close to the source" flaw as the Miles book.) ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, you're quite right, I did get Norman and Davies confused - thanks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED Trillfendi (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 19:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since y’all wanna get mad at me for pointing out that this "article" relies on egregious, dreadful secondary "sources" such as Beatles fan blogs, Google Maps, or just plain dead links. Out of the 82 citations of this article, over 50 came from a book about Paul McCartney so that leaves examples including:
  1. 62-year-old Jim was earning £10 a week in 1964 (equivalent to £200 in 2018), but Paul suggested that his father should retire, and bought "Rembrandt"; a detached mock-Tudor house in Baskervyle Road, Heswall, Cheshire, for £8,750 (equivalent to £174,200 in 2018). the "source" for a smattering of photos is "magicbeatlestours.com"
  2. Ruth remembered that Jim was funny and musical with her, but also strict when she was young, and was insistent that she learned good table manners and etiquette when speaking to people. the "source" for this irrelevant trivia is "classicbands.com"
  3. His two sons were the first in the McCartney family line to buy cars. the "source" of this irrelevant trivia from an archived link of liverpoolmuseums.org.uk and the article isn’t even about that, for crying out loud, it’s about Mike’s photography hobby.
  4. Jim advised Paul to take some music lessons, which he did, but soon realised that he preferred to learn 'by ear' (as his father had done) and because he never paid attention in music classes. the "source" of this is a "femalefirst.co.uk" blurb that makes no mention of Jim nor Mary.
The entire marriage section is a directory of addresses with no respect to privacy. So indeed, take the "reputably published" books about Paul McCartney away from this and you are left with nothing. Trillfendi (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let us readjust the article and use better sources if we must, but deleting the overall article would serve to remove useful information. McCartney75 10:39, 1 April 2019 (EST)
    • Like the incredibly WP:USEFUL "Jim avidly read the Liverpool Echo or Express, liked solving crosswords and instigated discussions about varied subjects." and "As Jim was a heavy smoker, Jim would first dry and then crush sprigs of Lavender and then burn them (like incense) in the ashtrays to kill the smell of his cigarette smoke."? The only thing useful about this would be "Paul McCartney's parents were Jim and Mary", or whatever would fit into Paul_McCartney#Early_life, Mr. McCartney. Reywas92Talk 18:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You Beatles fans need to take the strawberry colored glasses off. Be realistic! What "better sources" even exist about these people? Literally unknown except the fact that "they were Paul McCartney's parents". What do you legitimately think you're going to find? Everything about them comes from biographical books written about their son for God's sake. There are no Rolling Stone articles on these people. There are no 60 Minutes interviews with them. Trillfendi (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge good bits to Paul McCartney#Early life then delete: Agree with nom. Article goes into many odd and peculiar details about the lives of this couple, a couple that was never notable in their own right. These details are great in a niche book dedicated to the topic, but not for Wikipedia's general audience. Having not read McCartney's article, I do think there is some interesting background here to Paul's life that deserves mention in his article if not already there, and should be merged. TarkusABtalk 01:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much every detail of encyclopedic value on these two is already mentioned in Paul's "Early life" section. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:57, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_and_Mary_McCartney_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1072141277"