Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitchell Wherley
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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mitchell Wherley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Previously a domestic partner of a notable person, which in itself doesn't infer notability to someone and a short mention in the other person's article is enough (and it is there). Other than that, there's one source, from a local paper's website about a small business he co-owns, which again does not make him particularly notable. I can't find any better sources by googling. Bobet 10:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Typically, I would agree with you concerning one event. However, in this case, though he is linked and most of the coverage is based on his relationship with Esera Tuaolo, I was able to find significant coverage that dealt with Mr. Wherley as an individual. Given this fact, I have to go with keep. In the mean time, I have started referencing and citing the piece. If anyone wants to give a hand and help out, feel free. Happy New Year. ShoesssS Talk 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So where are those sources you found? - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you look at the piece, you will note that it is now sourced. Didn’t happen by magic :-). ShoesssS Talk 13:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed the point. A gay nfl player is something to write about, his former partner, not so much, and as you say, the coverage is never about mr. Wherley alone. It's the same reason you wouldn't write an article about a wife or a child of any other famous person, there's simply nothing to say about them outside that context, which can be better handled in the partner's (or parent's or whatever) article. - Bobet 15:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no problem with a merge and redirect. However, that begs the question, why did you bring it here? This area is for discussions on deletions, not for discussions on merge/redirect. That is better handled on the articles discussion page and when consensus is reached, and consensus can be just one editor if no others participate in a reasonable time frame,and just move it over at that point. OK. ShoesssS Talk 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's here because to me, deletion is a better outcome than a merge or a redirect. Merging won't be useful since the data in this article is out of date, questionable (see the talk page) and everything useful is or has been in the other article (if it was removed from there as an editorial decision, re-adding the same content because you like to merge something is just annoying). Creating redirects from every ex to their partner is pointless, mostly because no one will ever look up this person out of that context, and it's questionable due to wp:blp1e. - Bobet 09:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no problem with a merge and redirect. However, that begs the question, why did you bring it here? This area is for discussions on deletions, not for discussions on merge/redirect. That is better handled on the articles discussion page and when consensus is reached, and consensus can be just one editor if no others participate in a reasonable time frame,and just move it over at that point. OK. ShoesssS Talk 15:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have missed the point. A gay nfl player is something to write about, his former partner, not so much, and as you say, the coverage is never about mr. Wherley alone. It's the same reason you wouldn't write an article about a wife or a child of any other famous person, there's simply nothing to say about them outside that context, which can be better handled in the partner's (or parent's or whatever) article. - Bobet 15:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge. Outdated information isn't neccesarily unencyclopedic. The article could still state the guy was his partner from xxxx to xxxx without doing any concessions on accuracy. Covering him in the biography of the NFL player makes the article complete. Owning a few succesful businesses may make him notable, but without enough information to write a biographical article merging is the better solution. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither the domestic nor the business arrangement is sufficiently notable to be worth an article. DGG (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or redirect to Esera Tuaolo) - notability is not inherited from his partner. Terraxos (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems an unremarkable (even if documented) example of a kind of businessman of whom there are hundreds of thousands. -- Hoary (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2009 (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.