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

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 | 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]

• At the moment, what is in this article could be held in the Chelsea Clinton so redirect. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:10, 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]

• Merge: Chelsea CLinton is still short and the international publicity of her wedding shows shows her husband is notable. 213.122.203.99 (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but give a brief mention on Chelsea's page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain - Mentioned in media for over a decade, son of two former Congresspeople, husband of Chelsea Clinton, son-in-law of a former President. Notable. Mentioned in media. People want information about him. Amechad (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC) amechad[reply]
  • Strong delete - Known for nothing except linked to other people who are notable. And notability isn't inherited. Otherwise I should get an article since I am related to a famous actor. (BTW, responding to the above person - "mentioned in media for over a decade". So what? "Mentioned in media". You said that once. "Notable". For? Many people get mentioned in the media many times, including very well known child abusers (look, Vanessa George is redlinked), murderers, villains etc... however they don't all have articles) 82.152.201.3 (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Chelsea Clinton. Notability isn't inherited, and this guy isn't notable if he had married Jane Smith. — Timneu22 · talk 13:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• retain - Previously mentioned in the media, the son of notables, and husband of Chelsea Clinton. Son-in-law of former president is notable. Amechad (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these arguments are based on inherited notability. — Timneu22 · talk 14:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unless notability is established other then being a husband and son-in-law of Clintons. --- A. L. M. 18:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is not inherited, even with that many notable relatives. Hekerui (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: he is one half of the two person duo being billed in numerous sources as the Wedding of the Century. What benefit would there be to keeping information about him in the Chelsea Clinton article? A redirect to that article would just result in the reader having to pick out the material about him from that article. Bus stop (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chelsea Clinton article, personal life section, is tiny, and mostly comprises of information of this guy. Redirecting to Chelsea Clinton#Personal life is the right thing to do. — Timneu22 · talk 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you evaluate what is the (anything) of the century when the century is only 10% completed. We do not know what will happen in the future. Media hype about something does not make it important or give it encyclopedic value. The wedding of a former president's offspring in it's self is not even noteworthy enough to have an article of it's own. Chealsea Clinton is only slightly noteworthy due to her relationship to her Father/Mother, and imho should be a small section in the Bill Clinton article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.228.111 (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone's most notable accomplishment is to be married to someone extremely famous and important I believe established Wikipedia consensus is to consider them not notable. When the person they are married to is themselves only famous being the offspring of someone extremely famous and important then the first person really doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. __meco (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Currently, he's notable for one event, his wedding to Chelsea Clinton. We have some reliable sources for the event itself. This is the relevant policy, from WP:BLP1E:

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]

• Delete He's just not notable, no matter who he's related and/or married to. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 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]

• Weak keep, but otherwise the notable event in question, the Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding, or however the style-guide suggests, probably needs its own article. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the wedding an article on its own when it can be merge into chelsea's page (and mentioned on the bill/hillary's page) That should be deleted too.(Lihaas (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
  • Even if that new article is valid (not so sure), there still is no reason for a separate Marc Mezvinsky article. The wedding article could have a "background" section that sufficiently covers the groom and bride, with a {{main}} template to redirect Chelsea's info to her page. I still see no reason why Marc Mezvinsky is a valid topic on its own. — Timneu22 · talk 10:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding is up for deletion. The article is almost an exact duplicate of the Personal life section of the Chelsea Clinton article. Marx Mezvinky and the wedding are where they belong - in the Chelsea Clinton aticle. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - known for one event and Chelsea Clinton's notability is not inherited by her husband. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. If he ever does anything notable, then an article may be appropriate. Deor (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. (apart for his marriage - covered elsewhere) Off2riorob (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He is only notable because of his marriage to a person who is only notable because of her parents. This one is a no-brainer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.158.197 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He's simply not notable as an individual, deserves a couple of lines on the Chelsea Clinton article, --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article itself makes the case. It says exactly 3 things about the subject: he's one of 10 children of 2 notable people (notability not inherited), he's an investment banker (not notable per se), and he's Chelsea Clinton's husband (again, notability not inherited). Most of the article is actually devoted to his meeting, dating, and marrying Chelsea and should simply be pasted into her article. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete non-notable person; one sentence in the Chelsea Clinton article is about the extent this is worth Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• retain - final I've reviewed the opinions below and my decision it to retain. People have a right to know about his ultimate plans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.82.196 (talk) 00:43, 7 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]

• Delete - definitely a WP:BLP1E as he's done nothing of note besides marry Chelsea. Whether the information is worth merging somewhere is an editorial decision best made at the possible merge articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 8 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.