The result was keep. The type of content in these articles is widely accepted as belonging in Wikipedia so long as it is reliably sourced, as evidenced by a plethora of featured and good articles. Ultimately this is a concern of whether there is not enough reliably sourced information to constitute articles separate from the main articles. For these articles in general, it has not been demonstrated that this is the case. Jujutacular talk 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
These "personal relationships of" articles are really no more than coatracks on which to hang large quantities of gossip (some well-sourced, some not so) regarding the associates of prominent people -- gossip that for the most part lacks sufficient encyclopedic value to be included, at this level of detail, in the primary biographies. While not everyone mentioned still survives, the articles include problematic BLP content, and often include information regarding deceased persons which is more titillating than encyclopedic. Information, like much found in these articles, which plays a minor part in full-length biographical works, is given undue weight when excerpted and given prominence in short Wikipedia articles. In the absence of any discernible relationship to the genuinely significant aspects of the subjects' careers, such content should neither be included in the subjects' biographies nor given greater prominence by spinning off separate articles.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
If you look at the Sinatra article for example, every one of his wives and every one of the relationships described and every one of his children is/was a celebrity in their own right and has their own article. Even Debbie Rowe, who only became notable by virtue of her marriage to Michael Jackson, has her own article, is described as having given interviews (however infrequently) and making statements to the press through her attorneys, and was portrayed in at least one notable dramatized work. There's obviously much less of a privacy concern with people who willingly engaged with the media (or, arguably, anyone who willingly got involved with A-list celebrities such as these whose every move is reported), and whose stories have even been dramatized, above and beyond their simply being widely reported. So the only relevance BLP has here is editing concerns: making sure everything is reliably sourced and that there isn't unnecessary private detail (which you probably think all of these articles are) that isn't relevant to their widely-reported relationships with these celebrities or other aspects of their public lives.
It would be a different question if we were talking about a standalone article on a housewife rumored to have slept with Sinatra once, or tabloid reports alleging that said housewife and her husband held a key party prior to her getting banged Ol' Blue Eyes. Nor are we talking about detailed articles on the relationships of barely notable cartoon voice actors, game show hosts, or an infomercial spokesperson; it's hard to get more famous than Jackson, Elvis, Sinatra, and McCartney are/were worldwide. So I see no unfixable BLP issues here that would compel deletion. postdlf ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The type of content in these articles is widely accepted as belonging in Wikipedia so long as it is reliably sourced, as evidenced by a plethora of featured and good articles. Ultimately this is a concern of whether there is not enough reliably sourced information to constitute articles separate from the main articles. For these articles in general, it has not been demonstrated that this is the case. Jujutacular talk 13:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
These "personal relationships of" articles are really no more than coatracks on which to hang large quantities of gossip (some well-sourced, some not so) regarding the associates of prominent people -- gossip that for the most part lacks sufficient encyclopedic value to be included, at this level of detail, in the primary biographies. While not everyone mentioned still survives, the articles include problematic BLP content, and often include information regarding deceased persons which is more titillating than encyclopedic. Information, like much found in these articles, which plays a minor part in full-length biographical works, is given undue weight when excerpted and given prominence in short Wikipedia articles. In the absence of any discernible relationship to the genuinely significant aspects of the subjects' careers, such content should neither be included in the subjects' biographies nor given greater prominence by spinning off separate articles.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk) 16:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
reply
If you look at the Sinatra article for example, every one of his wives and every one of the relationships described and every one of his children is/was a celebrity in their own right and has their own article. Even Debbie Rowe, who only became notable by virtue of her marriage to Michael Jackson, has her own article, is described as having given interviews (however infrequently) and making statements to the press through her attorneys, and was portrayed in at least one notable dramatized work. There's obviously much less of a privacy concern with people who willingly engaged with the media (or, arguably, anyone who willingly got involved with A-list celebrities such as these whose every move is reported), and whose stories have even been dramatized, above and beyond their simply being widely reported. So the only relevance BLP has here is editing concerns: making sure everything is reliably sourced and that there isn't unnecessary private detail (which you probably think all of these articles are) that isn't relevant to their widely-reported relationships with these celebrities or other aspects of their public lives.
It would be a different question if we were talking about a standalone article on a housewife rumored to have slept with Sinatra once, or tabloid reports alleging that said housewife and her husband held a key party prior to her getting banged Ol' Blue Eyes. Nor are we talking about detailed articles on the relationships of barely notable cartoon voice actors, game show hosts, or an infomercial spokesperson; it's hard to get more famous than Jackson, Elvis, Sinatra, and McCartney are/were worldwide. So I see no unfixable BLP issues here that would compel deletion. postdlf ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) reply