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 keep. It's clear from the comments that most people believe that Debbie's relationship with Michael Jackson makes her inheritently notable. (X! · talk)  · @183  ·  03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Rowe[edit]

Debbie Rowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails notability per WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED which explicity states that "a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative". I fail to see anything Debbie Rowe has done that is notable in it's own right that isn't connected to her famous ex-husband Paul75 (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - largely for the reasons given by the nomination. I was actually reviewing this myself, and my sources search to date yields nothing that isn't related simply to the fame of Michael Jackson - the quantity is not in doubt, but the quality to satisfy the non-trivial coverage required of WP:N and WP:BIO is. That said, a redirect to Michael Jackson (or an appropriate subsection of the same) would seem appropriate, since the pertinent information exists there already. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What is wrong with that article? It's well referenced and informative, and the separated information is no harm for Wikipedia, especially when we speak about such an important person (Michael Jackson). Their relationship is very important for mapping of Jackson's life and the detailed information is useful for the readers. The circumstances of their common life are covered in notable media. If we delete this, we should delete half of Wikipedia. Btw, I'm not a big fan of Michael. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point is that if it is an important part of Jackson's life, it should be in one of Jackson's articles, and indeed is detailed in Michael Jackson itself. The issue here isn't the existence of information, but whether she has notability of her own (since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED) sufficient to justify an entire biography on her. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge any relevant information into Michael Jackson, and probably a redirect there. The section on the second marriage seems to be the place for the information to go. It seems that nothing notable apart from the marriage has been done by the individual. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Paul75 raises an interesting point, that she has no notable "existence" outside of her relationship to Jackson and the kids, but I think Ms. Rowe is notable because of the power she has to create news. Her actions regarding the kids will be under intense media scrutiny, no matter what she does. That is power - the power to create a media frenzy at will. That kind of power IS notable. So I, for one would disagree with the statement that "notability is not inheritable." It certainly is.

Let's take Prince Harry as an example. This guys notability is exclusively inherited! But, you might say, he's a prince. So what. He's not the first or even the second in line to the throne. His title itself does not give him any powers. But his actions have the potential to create newsworthy events, to cause a media frenzy. If he goes to a costume party wearing a Nazi swastika armband, the world takes notice. My and your actions do not wake up the world - we're not notable.

By extension, Debbie Rowe's actions also have that power, and that makes her notable. So do Jackson's kids, for the very same reason.

Another example are the pages and pages of entries devoted to the people related to the death of Anna Nicole Smith. There is a page for Howard K. Smith, who has no notability outside of his relationship to her. There is a very long entry about her son, Daniel. There is an entry for Larry Birkhead. These people have no notability whatsoever outside of their relationship to Smith. But they still have entries because they were newsworthy. So is Ms. Rowe, and the kids. Jgroub (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument supports the notion that she has no notability outside of her realtionship with Michael Jackson, and thus fails the relevant clause of our notability guidelines for people. I feel you are muddling up the real-world and Wikipedian definitions of notability, which are not the same. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't feel terribly strongly about it but I do feel that it deserves to be kept. She's very much in the public eye at the moment, especially with the whole custody battle just around the corner. Tris2000 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy or guideline that you can cite in support of retention? At the moment, people are saying that she is not notable because her "fame" such as it is, is derived from Michael Jackson, and notability is not inherited. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability is not inherited, and giving birth to two children allegedly fathered by a celebrity is not sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Absent the giving birth and the marriage, she would definitely not have an article, Appropriate to mention her in an article about Jackson, since that its the basis of any press coverage. Fails WP:BIO.
• Strong Keep She has a notable life story which has been covered by the mainstream media. I made a comment to my wife while we were watching the (neverending) news coverage of the Jackson story that, "She is the only person in the story that we are allowed to hate." I feel that lots of people do hate her. I will not go so far as to say that this includes WP editors (whom I don't know), but hate her or not she is notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you indicate to me which part of the notability guidelines says that we can include an individual if they are hated by somebody? Also, you said to your wife that she can be hated because she was being covered as part of the Michael Jackson story - that means she was being discussed by the mainstream media only as related to Michael Jackson, and notability is not inherited. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Adolf Hitler was only notable because of his relationship to other people. Darn I just lost the argument. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Notability isn't inherited" is a slogan that tends to get thrown around without a second thought. She is notable only for her connection to Michael Jackson, it's true, but I find lots of independent, third party press coverage of Debbie Rowe; and these are articles about her, not MJ. Being known only for a connection to a notable person cannot always be a disqualifier, otherwise we'd have no entries like, for example, Michelle Obama. Hairhorn (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, well, talking about someone who holds some vaguely official position (First Lady of the United States) is admittedly getting into tricky territory because she can only hold that position through her husband. I'd contend that there are sources about Michelle doing things on her own, independently of her husband, whilst Rowe has done little of note that isn't intricately bound up with Jackson even in the sources that exist. But we'll descend into an argument about Obama if we go down this route, which won't be profitable :) Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better example is Michelle before the election, when she didn't hold any office (but still had a wiki page). If I were more clever I could think of a better example... Hairhorn (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - I still think it's a dicey way to argue because of the old "other stuff exists" chestnut, because (before the election) I might have found myself able to argue for deletion on the "not inherited" line of argument as well (I don't know, I never reviewed it in the slightest). Fritzpoll (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I complained about this being a slogan, it was used in a much more bizarre way. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and this is a good example of why it should not be policy or guideline. Rowe meets the basic requirements of WP:N by a country mile. Maybe even a country light-year. Notability may not be "inherited," but that doesn't mean that the "heir" of a notable person can't develop independent notability. Paris Hilton would have been ignored by the media if she weren't the child of notable parents, but that didn't make her non-notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A better link into a guideline with the same essential meaning is WP:NRVE - the notion of non-inheritability is contained therein, and merely expounded upon in NOTINHERITED, which, as you say is simply part of an essay. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously. Very notable public figure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She was non-notable before she married Jackson and her notability is based solely on the fact that she bore him children (who don't get their own articles because of lack of notability, they get a group article or redirects). That's not notable. Almost all coverage I've read about her stems from her notable husband. Becoming an oddity by marrying a notable oddity doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many Ghits over 4.7 million are found in the search [1]. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how many of those hits are items about Jackson and Rowe gets mentioned in it? How many are blogs, fan sites and forums? Come on dude, big numbers don't prove anything? Aside from the fact that Debbie Rowe isn't an incredibly unique name (I went to high school with a Debbie Rowe), when I searched Google for "Debbie Rowe" and excluded "Michael Jackson", that 4.7 million dropped to 280,000 right off the bat.[2] And the top Ghit for that? A photographer by that name. Others in the top 10 results: " Is Debbie Rowe an absolute pig face? - Yahoo! Answers", some blogs and linkedln. Yeah, I can see the notability already. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Google, there are over 34,900,000 hits in this search, also 21,900,000 in Yahoo. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GOOGLEHITS, "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." WWGB (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that typing "Debbie Rowe" -jackson into Google leads to under 200K hits. 2help (message me) 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • You have to focus your search using quotation marks and +/- signs. And look at those results.....from those esteemed sources like bitchpleaz.com, everyonelovesascandal.com and hollywoodbackwash.com. You also fail to take into account that the AP does a story, 100 papers publish it and you get 101 returns on it. Saying the same exact thing 101 times doesn't make you more notable. The yahoo search? Return #1: Wikipedia. Again, look at how much the numbers plunge when you remove his name from it. Without his fame, she'd be another dental hygenist you never heard of. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that Wikipedia is the #1 search result for some topic has nothing to do with its notability or non-notability either way. The #1 Yahoo! search result for "Texas" is Wikipedia. The #1 Yahoo! search result for "Bill Clinton" is Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia might also be the #1 search result for some nonsense word a junior high school student added to Wikipedia yesterday (hypothetical example -- I'm not going to bother to search for one). The question for AfD is whether the topic has sufficient coverage outside Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if someone can explain something she has done that is notable other than "marry" Michael Jackson in a sham marriage and given birth to two children, then I'm all for keeping the article. She has failed all notability requirements for Wikipedia, no matter what the rest of the media say about her. Paul75 (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit like asking why Neal Armstrong is notable besides as a pilot and astronaut who went to the moon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the wifes of presidents? Bib (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Neil Armstrong was the first human being to walk on the moon. That is fairly notable. If you see this acheivement as equal to a sham marriage with Michael Jackson, then you need help. Paul75 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided. I'm interested in the subject but think it should be merged into or made a sub of M. Jackson's bio.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While granting that the subject is only famous because she married Michael Jackson and is the mother of two of his children, the publicity associated with her doing these things is so extensive that it warrants having an article about her in Wikipedia. While notability is usually not inherited, once in a while it can be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Metro makes an excellent point. I think the extensive media coverage warrants an article, although that will not be true in a year. For now, many people will be coming to Wikipedia for info on her, separate from MJ. For the sake of convenience, let the article stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.23.147 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Who is going to be raising his kids? Do they have their own articles? Let's not give anyone an excuse to make Michael's article any bigger than it has to be.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least until further court orders, Michael's mother Katherine Jackson will have custody of Michael's children, and she has her own article, even though she is notable primarily for her relationship to her celebrity children. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I figured it would be some other family members. Nevertheless, anything to give information about the kids some other place to go.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sad to say, she has had extensive media coverage as a well-documented celebrity. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I checked to see if the kids had an article, and it seems to be in more trouble than this one. But the information will have to go somewhere.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly. As per Vchimp, Bearian and others. She is definitely notable by Wikipedia standards IMO, but the recentism and vaguely speculative media coverage don't help. Though as time passes the importance of much of the article's content might decine, just her having fathered a child of Jackson's warrants inclusion in some way. —Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15)^{Drop a line} 07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the WP:NOTINHERITED thing is a fine argument if there's nothing else to make her notable. It keeps wikipedia from spreading to cover everyone who ever knew anyone famous. But this woman has received widespread coverage in legitimate media. Sometimes, I think, you can if you are closely associated with someone of certain degree of fame, that you gain a degree of notoriety all your own. Ask Monica Lewinski. CarbonX (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeep, Clearly a large figure in the media and has been for well over a decade. Article is plainly notable for encyclopedic purposes. Per above as well. Additionally, the consensus above is pretty clear. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An enyclopdic and well sourced article that meets WP:GNG. Her prior relationship with the deceased musician made it easier, yes... but the coverage meets the inclusion criteria and is now her own. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to Michael Jackson because Notability is not inherited and to protect Rowe's privacy. In these cases we should be really careful with Wikipedia:Libel because it's WP:BLP. Algébrico (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There are a lot of larger issues of parentage and custody involved in her case which have and probably will continue to make news and its helpful if a (better written) article clarifies these for those who will come looking for the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 17 July 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.