Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tagg Romney (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. There are strong arguments here that the page meets WP:GNG and should be kept but also is WP:NOTINHERITED, specifically that he has not done anything independantly of his father, and should be deleted. I think each argument was sufficiently well supported and am unable to say that one was stronger than the other. Ultimately, RightCowLeftCoast's suggestion may be the best compromise but it didn't receive sufficient support in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagg Romney[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tagg Romney (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)

No hint of even an assertion of notability exists in the article; it almost begs for a CSD tag. He's the son of a famous politician; nothing more. Reasonably well written, well sourced, and...thoroughly non-notable by Wikipedia standards. Hasn't published anything, isn't well-known in any field, hasn't generated any controversy. Notability is not inherited.  Frank  |  talk  12:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...? - I started the article in October 2012, in another historical context. After that, a lot of people have edited/expanded the article. Please, let those people speak by themselves regarding "notability", thank you! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Long, well referenced article without a shadow of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 13:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. I came to this AfD expecting to !vote "delete"; then I reviewed the footnote sources already in the article, which include multiple feature articles (i.e. in-depth coverage) in national publications about the subject more than sufficient to satisfy any interpretation of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. These are not passing mentions of the subject in articles about the famous father, but feature articles whose principle topic is the famous father's son. Not one, but dozens. I also considered whether it might be more appropriate to merge a limited amount of biographical content to the parent Mitt Romney article; then I reviewed the existing coverage of the children of national politicians. I note that there are stand-alone articles for Tricia Nixon Cox, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Michael Gerald Ford, John Gardner Ford, Steven Ford, Susan Ford, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and Barbara and Jenna Bush. The Obama daughters, both minors who their parents have carefully guarded from the overly intrusive press, are covered appropriately as part of the Barack Obama family article. Bottom line: there is ample "precedent" for stand-alone articles for the children of high-profile national politicians when ample in-depth coverage exists in reliable sources about those children to satisfy WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of WP:OSE, so disputing on the basis of it is perhaps not a great strategy, however...as far I can tell, each of those articles you mention has a glaring difference from this one: they are children of people who actually became POTUS. It's still true that notability is not inherited, but it does tend to rub off a bit more when you are the child of the holder of the highest elected office in the country. Regarding the references...the most significant point you make yourself is that these "feature articles" are about the "famous father's son". That smacks of inherited notability in the clearest way. A perusal of the titles of those references bears this out: the vast majority of them mention Mitt Romney, politics, Ann Romney, or Obama. Furthermore, a high percentage of those references are dated in the two months before the 2012 election. None of this supports the notion of notability of the subject of this article.  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the article makes it clear that he hasn't actually achieved anything notable at all in his own right. We should ask if the article would exist in the first place if he was not the son of a famous man. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clear, easy, and obvious pass of GNG. Just look at the footnotes... Carrite (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is still not inherited. While there are plenty of references listed some are duplicates, and the only things he's done that approach notability are existence on his father's campaign staff and a quote about wanting to hit the President. Also, CSD G4 may apply, as the previous deletion discussion resulted in deletion. The subject's notability hasn't increased since the last AFD. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has probably declined since then, hasn't it? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I urge you to review the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, as well as the "notability is not inherited" rule per WP:NOTINHERITED. NOTINHERITED apparently does not state what you think it does; it simply states that subjects related to a notable subject are not necessarily notable themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.
Furthermore, once GNG is satisfied, NOTINHERITED is irrelevant. The subject is notable, and stands on its own, without reference to any related subject. Under WP:N, a subject is not necessarily notable for having done something; Paris Hilton is the classic example of "famous for being famous," and, yes, she is notable because she has received in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per GNG. I have never seen anyone in an AfD successfully argue that multiple feature articles about a subject person in major national publications (The New Republic, New York Daily News, The New York Times, The Washington Post), as well as other regional publications, are insufficient to establish the subject's notability per GNG.
One last point: Someone raised the issue of this subject having been previously determined to be non-notable in an AfD and the article deleted. Well, what's happened since the last AfD? Only the 2012 presidential election and the reams of in-depth coverage the subject received during and after the campaign. Please review the linked footnotes; they clearly establish the subject's notability per GNG. To clear your thoughts, ask yourself this question: If Tagg Romney's last name were Smith, and he had received the same amount of in-depth coverage as "Tagg Smith, campaign spokesman," would he not be notable? My answer is "clearly, yes." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Since I'm being asked to explain my self: It is my opinion that the subject's notability has not increased since the last AFD. Losing candidates for any office who are not already notable do not meet the notability guidelines, in spite of the great number of journalists covering their campaigns. Their campaign staff have even less of a chance. The multiple sources are either talking about the same incident where he jokingly threatened to hit the President, or they are speculating about his possible run for office. Neither of these meet any threshold of notability. Also, this AFD is exactly where WP:NOTINHERITED applies. I have reviewed it. He has done nothing of note to warrant having a WP article. Perhaps one day, but not yet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of those links, all but two of them mention Mitt Romney in either the headline, the sub-headline, or the first two sentences of the article. This is a classic case of where WP:NOTINHERITED applies. This is not "significant coverage" of Tagg Romney. It is minor coverage of a famous politician's son. I've seen the phrase "passes WP:GNG" several times, but that assertion is not actually supported. Can you point to what Tagg Romney is actually known for? (He does not even begin to approach Paris Hilton's famous-for-being-famous status.)  Frank  |  talk  21:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of Wikipedia's notability standards is incorrect. Per WP:N, Tagg Romney is not required to be "known for anything"; he is only required to be have received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to establish his notability per the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. For the benefit of anyone who has not read WP:N recently, I quote the basic standard in full:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
"'Reliable' means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"'Sources', for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.
"'Presumed' means that 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. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
"A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."
For the record, WP:N and WP:GNG are guidelines; WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, one editor's opinion. Even if I believed that NOINHERITED actually applied in this instance, which I don't, it is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Essays do not trump policies or guidelines. The coverage that you characterize as "minor" includes full-length feature articles in The New Republic and The Washington Post wherein Tagg Romney is the primary subject; such articles clearly satisfy GNG. The fact that Tagg would not have received this coverage if he was not his father's son is irrelevant; he received the coverage, the coverage is significant, the coverage appeared in multiple sources, and the sources are reliable. It would be helpful if you would quote any portion of WP:N above that you believe the subject does not satisfy so that other editors can understand where you are coming from. Likewise, it would be helpful if you would quote the exact language (and/or examples) from the NOTINHERITED essay that you think cover this subject. Frankly, I'm having a difficult time accepting your perspective as grounded in anything resembling the Wikipedia notability guidelines, which ultimately are the only things that matter. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, they are, and the relevant point in the guideline (go ahead and ignore the essay) is this portion: 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. It is my opinion that Tagg Romney has done not a single thing to establish that he is actually notable, save for the appearance of such created by being the son of a clearly notable individual. Indeed, the article continues to be completely devoid of even a shred of a claim of notability; it is merely a collection of trivia about the son of a famous politician. Were he not Mitt Romney's son, this article would be an unremarkable A7 deletion. On the apparently correct suspicion that there would be objection to such a deletion because of his famous father, I did not choose that route out of long-standing respect for (read: "grounding in") the community process of consensus.  Frank  |  talk  15:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frank, per the CSD A7 criteria, "An article about a real person . . . that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." Arguably, the first sentence of the existing article is more than sufficient to satisfy the A7 criteria: "Taggart "Tagg" Romney (born March 21, 1970) is an American businessman, venture capitalist, political advisor, and the oldest son of businessman and politician Mitt Romney." Furthermore, once an AfD is pending, CSD is no longer appropriate. And then there's that pesky problem of WP:N, where significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources leads to a presumption of notability (the higher standard in comparison to the CSD A7 criteria). CSD A7 was not designed to handle situations such as this one; whether this article is kept, redirected, merged or deleted, AfD is the appropriate venue and method for determining this article's fate, not CSD. Remember: any CSD tag can be removed by any editor who is not the article creator; thus a proposed speedy deletion can be disputed by almost anyone. When half or more of !votes in this AfD support keeping the stand-alone article, I think we can safely assume that any CSD A7 tag would be disputed and removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While you are "safely assuming," perhaps you should assume that, having deleted more than 5000 articles using those same CSD criteria, I am quite familiar with them. I was referring to my choice to start this AfD discussion in the first place rather than simply deleting the article under CSD A7 (or G4, which was another option) outright.  Frank  |  talk  19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Romney family, the subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, I don't believe that is in debate. What appears to be in debate is whether there is significant coverage of the subject independent of the activities of his father. There is significant coverage articles of other things where the subject is mentioned, but not where the subject is the primary subject of the source itself. That being said, it could be argued that if all those mentions are added up that they would add up to significant coverage of the subject of this AfD himself. Yet at the same time the vast majority of this coverage occurred during the period of the subject's father's presidential election attempts, and thus why NOTINHERITED is argued by others above. Therefore, as a compromise, I am of the opinion that the subject falls within the scope of an existing article, the article about the Romney family and thus a redirect is in order.
Verified content of the subject can be summarized and merged into an appropriate section, and if that article becomes too large per WP:LIMIT an article of the subject of this AfD can be spunout. Alternately, if the subject receives significant coverage independent of his father's activities, the article can be recreated at that time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for coverage to be separate from anything, as long as there are multiple, independently published sources dealing with the subject at length. It goes without saying that most of the coverage of Mitt Romney's campaign surrogate Tagg Romney is going to be in connection with the Romney campaign. To rehash a line I used in a different political context at a previous AfD, this is no time for neener neener triumphalism in the wake of a political defeat, this is a time for common sense (spelled I-A-R). In the last month there have been more than 6,200 people visiting this page... This is not an obscure figure, this is a significant political entity in his own right. Carrite (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What political defeat? Tagg Romney has never run for or held any public office. That politics even enters into the conversation is more evidence that this article rests upon inherited notability. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on the rationales of Dirtlawyer1 & Carrite, I see nothing in WP:GNG or WP:N which specifically disqualifies subjects that have received significant-coverage-in-reliable-sources if the coverage is primarily or initially generated by the subject's connection to a famous person. As pointed out prior, WP:NOTINHERITED simply states that such a connection does not in and of itself confer inherent notability. As also previously noted, once WP:GNG has been met, WP:NOTINHERITED becomes irrelevant. The question "would he have received all this coverage if he were not the son of a famous person?" is hardly pertinent. We could ask a similar question about Michelle Obama. Does anyone think she would have received any of the voluminous media coverage that has been bestowed upon her if she were the wife of say, a small town banker rather than of Barack Obama? But I doubt seriously there will be an afd nomination of her page anytime soon, or if there is, it will almost certainly be nipped in the bud promptly. Yes, I know WP:OSE is not a effective argument, and that's not the point in citing this example. The point is to show that the reason the subject has received significant coverage to begin with is largely beside the point. The point is that they have received it. (Per Dirtlawyer, subjects are not required to be known for anything) Also, it is worth noting that Wikipedia has entire categories for American political activists and American political consultants, both of which Tagg Romney could be reasonably identified as. Again, I mention this not to argue "other stuff exists" but to demonstrate that WP clearly recognizes that the kind of work/activism Tagg is best known is notable subject matter (when significantly covered in multiple RS's, of course). In light of this, a question asked earlier by Dirtlawyer1 (and which does not appear to have yet been answered) seems worthy of revisiting: "If Tagg Romney's last name were Smith, and he had received the same amount of in-depth coverage as 'Tagg Smith, campaign spokesman,' would he not be notable?" IMO, the answer is a resounding "yes". And if such is the case, why would the same amount of in-depth coverage "not count" because he happens to be the son of the candidate he campaigned for? Can anyone cite a WP policy or guideline that clearly supports such a position?--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question that still is pertinent is, is there significant coverage about the subject of this AfD? There are tons of mentions of the subject of this AfD that are significant coverage of something other than subject of this AfD, but that doesn't make it significant coverage which we are to determine notability of the subject of this AfD. So then the question is, do those individual mentions add up to something that can be considered significant coverage? That is what is debatable, and thus why I provided a compromise. I would not support outright deletion, given my review of the sources available, nor would I support a strong keep either.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It does not matter why reliable sources independent of the subject might cover the subject in depth and at length, only that they do. RayTalk 20:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are sufficient good references about him in particular. RayAYang, above, says it perfectly. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly there is significant coverage about him in various reliable sources. As previous commenters have said, it's not important why the coverage exists, all that matters is that it does.--Cjv110ma (talk) 05:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This should have never been recreated without going to DRV first. Nothing has changed at all since I nominated this for deletion (successfully) almost 2 years ago; then, as now, the source coverage stems from the connections to his father. The person's bio needs to be looked at in the context of WP:NOTINHERITED; any other person in the world who had been VP of online marketing for a shoe company, a presidential campaign aide, etc...would not get within spitting distance of being covered in the media. The coverage here comes solely by who he is related to. The keep votes must be weighted as next-to-nothing, as they do not address the "notability is not inherited" issue, nor do they demonstrate what has changed in the 2 years since AfD #1. What has Tagg Romney done independently of his father to earn coverage in reliable sources? Nothing in 2011, which is why it was deleted, and nothing new since then. RayAYang's "vote" is particularly odious and at complete odds with Wikipedia guidelines. The "why" of a source is of great importance to deciding WP:BLP1E; sources that only cover a subject in the context of one event do not make a 1Event person into a worthwhile article subject. So all in all, if there was ever a time for a closing admin to demonstrate that an AfD is not a straight-up vote, but rather a measure of arguments that are correctly backed by policy or guideline, this is it. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I cannot understand the emotions that this article generates from some otherwise experienced editors who should know better. What has changed since the last AfD in 2011? Well, only multiple major feature articles in national and major regional publications, where the principal subject was the son, not the father. Furthermore, WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy, and not a notability guideline. It is one editor's opinion, although a generally well expressed one. In this instance, those who cite NOTINHERITED are citing the link name, not what the essay actually says: no person or other topic is notable merely by virtue of its relationship to another notable subject. In all events, once sufficient in-depth coverage is shown in multiple, independent, reliable sources and notability is established per WP:GNG, then whatever the NOTINHERITED essay might have to say is moot. Essays, not matter how well written, do not trump the notability guidelines. Anyone who disputes GNG has been satisfied needs to explain why the coverage in the following feature articles is not sufficient:
[1]
[2]
[3]
As I and others have said above, under the general notability guidelines, it does not matter why a subject received coverage, only that the subject received sufficient coverage. Period. I recognize that there is a separate argument to be made, apart from notability, whether the subject would be better covered as part of another article. If that's your argument, make it, but disputing the subject's notability is an uphill climb, especially in light of the Wikipedia coverage of every other presidential offspring in the last 40 years.
Personally, I don't give a rat's backside about Tagg Romney, and I have zero emotional investment in this article, its subject, or the subject's father, but I do expect that experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedia editors will do their best to uniformly apply the notability guidelines fairly and without obvious bias. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot express enough how much of a blatant lie the statement "it does not matter why a subject received coverage" is; it does matter, quite critically so. This is just either rank ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of how we deal with biographies and notability in this project. Several years ago there as significant coverage of a woman who walked into a mall pool while texting; no article. Several years ago there was significant coverage of a girl who couldn't stop hiccuping; no article. Why? Because a consensus of editors who based their deletion argument on policy, on guideline, and yes, on essays, made the better arguments that sourcing alone isn't enough. A more relevant example to this article would be Al Gore III; again, lots of coverage in sources, all of it due to a famous connection. Same with Tagg here, none of this would be here if it wasn't for his dad. The kid has done NOTHING N-O-T-H-I-N-G independent of his father. Hell, even the cited articles reflect that, e.g. "Tagg Romney has a Heightened Role in Fathers\ Presidential Campaign" and "Dedicated to Dads Hopes Tagg Romney Storms the Campaign Trail Again". Tagg's riding the coattails here, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First off, calling a difference of opinion "a blatant lie" is uncivil and I urge you to expunge and rephrase. I happen to agree with Dirtlawyer (no lie!), GNG calls for multiple, independently published, substantial pieces of coverage. It does not speak to the context in which those pieces of coverage. Tagg Romney could be Mitt Romney's personal mole-shaver, known only for the grooming of skin blemishes; if he's covered by multiple, independently published sources so that a verifiable and reliable biography may be written, he is in under GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a demonstrably false assertion. I will rehash the earlier example of the walk-into-pool-while-texting woman; there are ample coverage in solid reliable sources to be found right now, I google and see CBS News, the Telegraph, and the Boston Globe. Yet there is no article, as a correctly-argued and suppoered WP:BLP1E argument trumps sourcing. That is the point that is eluding you; you say "he is in under GNG", I correctly point out that that isn't the definitive say in the matter. You and some others may do the "it's only an essay" to your heart's content, but WP:ATA is a widely-cited and accepted norm of deletion discussions. As the essay tag says "consider it with discretion", as it is indeed neither policy nor guideline. But there is an expectation on an editor who wishes to completely disregard the "not inherited" ideal to justify that. I see no justification thus far. Only the son of a politician who has received mention in sources because of his relations, not for a single thing in and of itself that he has done. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only an essay, an opinion piece, something created from thin air without community approval as a governing guideline or policy of this site. I've got my own opinions about whether the 25 mph speed limit down the road is appropriate. You might have your own opinion that differs. Ultimately, it's the law, not your or my or anyone else's opinion, that determines whether a ticket for driving 40 mph will stand. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although Dirtlawyer1 quoted WP:GNG above, I'll quote an important part of it here again:
"'Presumed' means that 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."
Just meeting WP:GNG isn't enough reason to keep an article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot this part: "For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." — So what aspect of of the Guideline What Wikipedia Is Not does a biography of Tagg Romney violate? Where is the big consensus to delete? Carrite (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the essence of GNG, since there seems to be a tendency to call blue "green" here... "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.... A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia." BLP-1E is a very specific case, generally related to a single, sensational event. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note the word 'presumed' in that sentence, and note the section of GNG that I quoted. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in fact, note the section you (partially) quoted. It does not apply, in my opinion. Presumed means presumed, it does not mean "well, maybe probably." There needs to be a substantial demonstration of why WP:IAR should be imposed in this case. I am far from seeing it. Carrite (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is broad precedent that "not inherited" can (it's not automatic obviously, just as John Hinckley is an exception to BLP1E) trumps the GNG in the way that BLP1E does. I can think of many examples, from the already-noted Al Gore III to Sasha and Malia Obama. Without Al the 2nd, Al the 3rd is just another rich kid getting into trouble with the law. Without Barack, Sasha and Malia are just two tween-to-teenage kids. Famous people are scrutinized right down to the roots of their hair, and in these days of 24/7 media, the same goes for their relations. There's also what I still consider to be my crowning deletion achievement, and I invite the closing admin to have a read; the very hard-fought for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann, Michele's notorious "pray-the-gay-away" husband. The media had a mini ragefest over him at the height of election season, but it only game because of who he was married to, not because his actions were independently notable. That is the litmus test here. Tarc (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the Bachmann AfD is rather enlightening now that I am re-reading it. The keep arguments are the same there as here, many "keep it's reliably sourced", "keep it meets the GNG". The same magic hand-waving at "source + source == article" stuff. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Marcus Bachmann and the walk-into-the-pool-while-texting lady are examles of WP:1E or "15 minutes of fame", whereas the coverage of Tagg Romney has persisted over a period of several years (at least as far back as 2007). So it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison.--Cjv110ma (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a demonstrably incorrect claim. Read through the Bachmann discussion again, there were only a few invocations of 1E as an actual deletion rationale. Most of the mentions were done either in arguments of larger issues or when 1E was invoked along with several other reasons to delete. The important part of the closing statement was "Speaking broadly again, the delete arguments focused much more specifically on the sources provided, and in doing so demonstrated that significant coverage on the article's subject independent of his wife did not appear to exist." That's where we're at here; I'm not even remotely arguing deletion on 1Event platform, this is solely a "notability is not inherited" position. Again; every piece of coverage of Tagg Romney in reliable source is due to his last name. He is an otherwise unremarkable person filling unremarkable middle management and campaign aide positions. Tarc (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (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/Tagg_Romney_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136467754"