Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Asimov

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 delete. - Bobet 16:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Asimov

At best, article fails notability, and some versions were negative and poorly sourced. If the article could be left as it stands, (just date of birth, son of Isaac Asimov), I guess it would be a harmless nonnotable spot on Wikipedia's hard drive, but I fear the stub will be a springboard for more poorly sourced negative edits. Rich 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; marginally notable individual who happens to have some negative information about him that was fairly well sourced in the older version of the article.--Prosfilaes 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being the son of someone famous isn't enough to make you notable. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mere relation is rarely but sometimes sufficient, but the relatives of the famous frequently become notable by actions that would go unnoted if done by others. I believe the notability argument goes out the window when you're talking about articles made by people unrelated to and personally unfamiliar with the the subject. They're notable, or the article wouldn't have been made.--Prosfilaes 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Older versions were not well sourced, and the idea that articles are automatically notable when made by those unfamiliar with the subject is untenable. Michael Kinyon 12:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Problems with sourcing information do not justify deletion. -- Four Dog Night 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for maintaining his father's papers and possessions. Billy Blythe 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention can be made at Isaac Asimov and this can be turned into a redirect. Eusebeus 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced articles on living persons are a bad thing. Anville 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not add anything to Wikipedia. FCYTravis 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a somewhat tricky situation. As the article stands now, it is probably a speedy under CSD:A7 (to me, at least, mere relation to a notable person is not an assertion of notability). However, it's probably necessary to look at the previous version of the article, taking WP:BLP into consideration, and determining whether the several factors (being the son of a famous person + the [well-sourced] allegations of criminal conduct + the [poorly-sourced] report of conviction on at least some charges) add up to suitability for a Wikipedia article, and I would conclude that they simply aren't. --MCB 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unemployed recluse living on $3,000/month from his father's estate, accused of a misdemeanor, is non-notable.Edison 20:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's the otherwise unnotable son of someone famous, whose brief moment of infamy was only picked up because he's the son of someone famous, which gave it a news hook. If he'd been the son of someone who worked in the Men's Wear department at Sears, this story wouldn't have gotten past a 3-graf item buried in the local daily. --Calton | Talk 06:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? Rosemary Kennedy, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman are three people who would be completely non-notable except for their relation to a famous person. Whether it should be notable is completely POV and should never been an issue for Wikipedia; the quesion is whether they are.--Prosfilaes 12:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to make a counterargument, try to use examples that actually bear the slightest relation to it: Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman are non-notable except for their relation to a famous person in the same way Lee Harvey Oswald is completely non-notable except for his relation to a famous person. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that LHO actually did something. Those three were just victims. The end-all and be-all of Ron Goldman's notability is that he was killed at a famous crime that was famous because it was allegedly commited by a famous person.--Prosfilaes 10:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Merely being the son of someone famous does not automatically make him famous as well. Only having 283 ghits doesn't help much either. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 07:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a textbook example of Merge/redirect to me. The current one-line stub would be better placed as a line in the article on the venerable Isaac. Grutness...wha? 08:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already there. --MCB 21:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton StuartDouglas 11:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Isaac Asimov, particularly to a section dealing either with his family or with his papers. I'm sorry to hear that his son isn't doing much with his life but that's non-notable for Wikipedia; meanwhile, redirects are cheaper and more useful than anti-recreation page protections. Alba 17:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If something is notable for the world, it's notable for Wikipedia. Anti-recreation page protections should be used to protect vanity and ad pages from recreation, not to prevent the creation of a page people are actually interested in.--Prosfilaes 18:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me rephrase. This article belongs in the Isaac Asimov article until it becomes sufficiently notable on its own to merit a separate article. David Asmiov's only notability is his father. Therefore material on David should go under his father's article until circumstances merit otherwise. A redirect will efficiently underline this point. Alba 20:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something is notable for the world, it's notable for Wikipedia. Good point. Since this isn't notable for the world, out it should go. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with those above who believe that some of the negative information in the article was well sourced or fairly well sourced. Most important, the quote was attributed to an unnamed officer. That is pretty hard to falsify, especially given David Asimov's low notability. A newspaper (or possibly reckless mouthed officer) is on safe ground. I mean, if he had been the son of a famous active politician with supporters and rivals, various parts of the press would cared enough to do further digging, which would give partial braking action on the unattributed quote. By the way, I think that "average" offspring of famous people rarely get press coverage, hence notability, unless the famous person is an active politician. Rich 00:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is the sort of thing that comes up in interpreting WP:BLP, it's worth a little bit of analysis. I don't know if it's my post you're referring to above, but basically there were three negative items in the previous version(s) of the article: (1) that the subject was charged with a crime; (2) that a police officer commented on the nature and quantity of the evidence against him; and (3) that he was convicted of a crime, possibly as a result of a plea bargain. Item (1) was uncontestedly well sourced, via a reputable newspaper reporting on verifiable matters of record. Item (2) is well sourced as to the fact of the officer's allegation, but not necessarily as to the fact of the matter referred to. Under WP:BLP we probably should not use it even as to the allegation, unless corroborated. Item (3) appeared only in tertiary sources, that is, quotes from news reports that were not sufficiently identified to permit verification, and at least one was from an attack/advocacy site which is manifestly not a reliable source. This is the type of analysis that, I believe, BLP requires. --MCB 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right.Rich 01:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge verifiable information into his father's page. Badbilltucker 21:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out in a number of AfDs, "merge and delete" is not a permitted option in AfD, since the GFDL requires retention of the edit history of the previous article. Thus, if an article is formally merged as you suggest, a redirect to Isaac Asimov would need to be left in place. As a practical matter, the information in the sub-stub is already there, so this article can simply be deleted. --MCB 23:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my apologies, I should have used other, less official, wording. I was trying to imply that the creator of the page could put in some reference to the now-deleted arrest/conviction into the father's article if it were phrased in a non-objectionable way. But at this point, given the single event of notability of the son, creating a redirect would be pointless, particularly if his father's page is the only one he would be mentioned on anyway. Badbilltucker 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if that's all there is to say about him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 7 October 2006 (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.