Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Mezvinsky (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 with redirect to Chelsea_Clinton#Engagement_and_marriage. The topic is notable owing to coverage which stems from the notability of a spouse, Chelsea Clinton. Any notable, sourced content carried by this article is already covered in that BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mezvinsky

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Marc Mezvinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The previous AfD's decision to redirect to Chelsea Clinton was overturned apparently without consensus on 30 July, and he still isn't independently notable, other than being the husband of Chelsea Clinton and the children of two somewhat notable individuals, but notability is not inherited. He seems like a run-of-the-mill investment banker, no offense intended. —fetch·comms 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete this fella has no notability whatsoever, if chelsea has notability (which i doubt) then he can go onto that article, dont think this warrants mention on Bill or Hillary's page. but at most it can go on chelsea's page, not ever worth a redirect. What is his claim to fame? Mr. Chelsea? he works for goldman and/or interned at a political party...why not list all the bankers/interns with trust funds? Not to mention the edit summary [1]
ps- hes a yankee too? what happened to Billy? ;)(Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
strong delete or redirect to "Chelsea Clinton". delete it it for now. there isn't any valuable and notable information personally about him. he is basically unknown person. if he accomplished something noteworthy or get some more attention without the help of clinton or his family. this should be deleted. is this only going to say "he is financier and husband of chelsea clinton." 174.16.177.120 (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. I agree with the comments made above. The only press is through Chelsea Clinton, who is herself a secondary figure, only notable through Bill Clinton, which makes the connection here even more tenuous. Also, the sourcing seems to fall solidly short of the notability guidelines. Although the politicsdaily source seems to be written directly about him in detail, I think WP:ONEEVENT applies here. Also, although that source isn't exactly a private blogger, it's not exactly a reliable news source either--it is even presented as "Political gossip", and that's the only source with much detail. But even reading that source, most of it just talks about the Clintons. If, a few years from now, he is still getting the same degree of coverage, and there is more material to construct an encyclopedic page, even if all the coverage is through association with Chelsea, I might reconsider. But this article as-is is unencyclopedic and cheapens wikipedia...there's only enough sourceable material for a paragraph or two, and breaking it into headings just makes this page look like a magnet for celebrity gossip. Cazort (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, He is only notable as the husband of Chelsea Clinton, and as the son of Ed Mezvinsky and Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky. A brief mention of him in the articles on his wife and parents is sufficient. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain Adding it to another article will only make that article over-long. (This is a general point: Wikipedians should aim at a good batch of short interlinked articles with no redundancy)
Aa42john (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. ... The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
Clearly his role in the event is substantial. The question is how persistent coverage of the wedding is, or will be, in the media. Alternatively, we could create Chelsea Clinton's wedding, and merge this article into that. That subject is actually quite heavily sourced.
Also, I'm getting the impression that a lot of folks here don't really approve of the amount of coverage the wedding is getting in the mainstream media. That is a kind of bias: we should instead strive to represent the reliable sources fairly and proportionally, regardless of whether we find the topic "serious" or "frivolous". —Ashley Y 06:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding his lineage from two former congressional members and his recent wedding to a former first daughter, Mr. Mezvinsky is just not notable enough in his own right to warrant a page. That said, he should live and be well all his days.Alan (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is clearly notable in that he is now the topic of significant independent coverage from many of the most prominent publications around the world. He will likely remain notable given his attachment to Clinton. When we keep articles about minor reality TV personalities this would seem to be a clear keep even as a "TV personality". |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that coverage is from recent news on his marriage see WP:ONEEVENT. We're here to decide if he's notable now, not in the future. —fetch·comms 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited or established. This individual is not notable for anything other than the company he keeps. While he should be mentioned in the Chelsea Clinton article, he simply does not warrant an article of his own. No reflection on the individual, he simply hasn't yet established notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Cindamuse (talk) 02:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established by significant media coverage (see WP:NOTABLE). I see 6926 news articles on him when I put his name into Google. He's also the son of two former members of Congress. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may be, but only because he married a celebrity. There is not enough to say about Mezvinsky: He's the son of ..., he attended Stanford U., he's an investment banker, and he married Chelsea Clinton. This warrants a stand alone article? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the news articles are about him, that's actually sufficient. If the news articles are really about the wedding, that may be sufficient for an article about the wedding. —Ashley Y 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to rethink the formulation, because it's the section title in WP:ITSNOTABLE :) Hekerui (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved this down from the top where it was inserted above the nomination. Hekerui (talk) 10:25, 7 August 2010 (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/Marc_Mezvinsky_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1142288353"