593:. 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.
1028:, reluctantly. As per Vchimp, Bearian and others. She is definitely notable by Knowledge (XXG) 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. —
839:. 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 Knowledge (XXG). While notability is usually not inherited, once in a while it can be. --
445:
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
358:
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
267:
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.
139:
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
626:
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
347:
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
750:
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 Knowledge (XXG), no matter what the rest of the media say about
256:
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
730:
The fact that
Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG). The #1 Yahoo! search result for "Bill Clinton" is Knowledge (XXG). On the other hand, Knowledge (XXG)
715:
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
250:
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.
1046:
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
373:
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
187:
What is wrong with that article? It's well referenced and informative, and the separated information is no harm for
Knowledge (XXG), 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
158:- 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
731:
might also be the #1 search result for some nonsense word a junior high school student added to Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG). --
482:
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).
716:
returns on it. Saying the same exact thing 101 times doesn't make you more notable. The yahoo search? Return #1: Knowledge (XXG). 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.
1152:
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.
426:
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,
446:
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 :)
497:
858:
media coverage warrants an article, although that will not be true in a year. For now, many people will be coming to Knowledge (XXG) for info on her, separate from MJ. For the sake of convenience, let the article stand.
630:
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.
233:, 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. --
323:
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
188:
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 Knowledge (XXG). Btw, I'm not a big fan of Michael. --
1068:, 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.
797:
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.
307:- 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.
251:
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.
257:
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.
535:
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.
422:. "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
468:
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...
140:
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
268:
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.
132:
657:
883:. 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.
917:
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. --
531:
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
282:
Your argument supports the notion that she has no notability outside of her realtionship with Michael Jackson, and thus fails the relevant clause of
628:
557:- the notion of non-inheritability is contained therein, and merely expounded upon in NOTINHERITED, which, as you say is simply part of an essay.
827:
653:
1095:. Her prior relationship with the deceased musician made it easier, yes... but the coverage meets the inclusion criteria and is now her own.
995:
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.
202:
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
866:
48:. It's clear from the comments that most people believe that Debbie's relationship with Michael Jackson makes her inheritently notable.
262:
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.
17:
1012:
946:
900:
823:
929:
I figured it would be some other family members. Nevertheless, anything to give information about the kids some other place to go.
611:
544:
99:
94:
677:, "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)."
103:
206:
itself. The issue here isn't the existence of information, but whether she has notability of her own (since notability is
170:(or an appropriate subsection of the same) would seem appropriate, since the pertinent information exists there already.
539:
would have been ignored by the media if she weren't the child of notable parents, but that didn't make her non-notable.
86:
1177:
36:
193:
540:
769:
Isn't that a bit like asking why Neal Armstrong is notable besides as a pilot and astronaut who went to the moon?
1100:
774:
581:
1120:
1043:
528:
375:
325:
207:
1176:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
921:
843:
735:
627:
Google for "Debbie Rowe" and excluded "Michael Jackson", that 4.7 million dropped to 280,000 right off the bat.
404:
364:
359:
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.
286:. I feel you are muddling up the real-world and Wikipedian definitions of notability, which are not the same.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
967:
870:
862:
674:
1158:
1140:
189:
1004:
938:
892:
721:
636:
598:
238:
1162:
1144:
1104:
1083:
1060:
1034:
1020:
987:
954:
924:
908:
874:
846:
831:
822:. I'm interested in the subject but think it should be merged into or made a sub of M. Jackson's bio.--
806:
792:
778:
760:
738:
725:
704:
686:
668:
640:
621:
602:
585:
566:
548:
509:
492:
477:
455:
440:
408:
387:
368:
337:
316:
295:
277:
242:
219:
197:
179:
149:
68:
1096:
770:
577:
63:
1136:
918:
840:
732:
562:
488:
451:
400:
383:
360:
333:
308:
291:
215:
175:
661:
614:
505:
473:
436:
399:
was only notable because of his relationship to other people. Darn I just lost the argument. :-)
312:
1128:
1154:
1056:
983:
914:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
554:
996:
930:
884:
802:
756:
717:
632:
594:
273:
234:
145:
90:
1132:
1124:
1092:
349:
283:
163:
1115:
1069:
1048:
700:
230:
203:
167:
1029:
682:
558:
484:
447:
428:
379:
329:
287:
211:
171:
532:
159:
788:
501:
469:
432:
1052:
979:
536:
396:
57:
120:
798:
752:
269:
141:
82:
74:
1047:
certain degree of fame, that you gain a degree of notoriety all your own. Ask
696:
975:
678:
784:
51:
553:
A better link into a guideline with the same essential meaning is
1170:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
374:
mainstream media only as related to Michael Jackson, and
127:
116:
112:
108:
913:
At least until further court orders, Michael's mother
610:
many Ghits over 4.7 million are found in the search
498:
The last time I complained about this being a slogan
210:) sufficient to justify an entire biography on her.
1127:. In these cases we should be really careful with
1091:An enyclopdic and well sourced article that meets
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1180:). No further edits should be made to this page.
854:. Metro makes an excellent point. I think the
652:In Google, there are over 34,900,000 hits in
8:
348:its the basis of any press coverage. Fails
500:, it was used in a much more bizarre way.
229:and merge any relevant information into
695:into Google leads to under 200K hits.
576:Obviously. Very notable public figure.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
974:media coverage as a well-documented
284:our notability guidelines for people
783:How about the wifes of presidents?
24:
166:is. That said, a redirect to
1:
1031:Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15)
824:The Magnificent Clean-keeper
1121:Notability is not inherited
376:notability is not inherited
326:notability is not inherited
1197:
1163:01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
1145:20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
1125:to protect Rowe's privacy
1105:06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
1084:04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
1061:03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
1035:07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
1021:16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
988:18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
955:16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
925:00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
909:22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
875:22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
847:07:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
832:22:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
807:03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
793:14:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
779:14:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
761:07:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
739:07:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
726:03:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
705:05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
687:03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
669:02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
641:02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
622:00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
603:02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
586:19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
567:19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
549:18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
510:18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
493:17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
478:17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
456:17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
441:17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
409:17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
388:17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
369:17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
338:16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
317:16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
296:16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
278:14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
243:13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
220:11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
198:11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
180:09:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
150:09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
69:03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
1173:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
693:"Debbie Rowe" -jackson
691:Also note that typing
1129:Knowledge (XXG):Libel
541:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
658:21,900,000 in Yahoo
44:The result was
915:Katherine Jackson
865:comment added by
67:
1188:
1175:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1032:
1015:
1007:
999:
949:
941:
933:
903:
895:
887:
877:
666:
619:
130:
124:
106:
60:
54:
49:
34:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1178:deletion review
1171:
1116:Michael Jackson
1097:MichaelQSchmidt
1079:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1049:Monica Lewinski
1044:WP:NOTINHERITED
1030:
1013:
1005:
997:
947:
939:
931:
901:
893:
885:
860:
771:ChildofMidnight
662:
615:
578:ChildofMidnight
529:WP:NOTINHERITED
231:Michael Jackson
208:WP:NOTINHERITED
204:Michael Jackson
168:Michael Jackson
126:
97:
81:
78:
58:
52:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1194:
1192:
1183:
1182:
1166:
1165:
1147:
1107:
1086:
1063:
1037:
1023:
990:
970:, she has had
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
919:Metropolitan90
878:
849:
841:Metropolitan90
834:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
764:
763:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
733:Metropolitan90
710:
709:
708:
707:
689:
646:
645:
644:
643:
605:
588:
571:
570:
569:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
461:
460:
459:
458:
429:Michelle Obama
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
401:Northwestgnome
391:
390:
361:Northwestgnome
353:
341:
340:
320:
319:
301:
300:
299:
298:
264:
263:
259:
258:
253:
252:
245:
224:
223:
222:
182:
137:
136:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1193:
1181:
1179:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1131:because it's
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1085:
1082:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1014:contributions
1011:
1008:
1003:
1000:
994:
991:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
962:
956:
953:
950:
948:contributions
945:
942:
937:
934:
928:
927:
926:
923:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
907:
904:
902:contributions
899:
896:
891:
888:
882:
879:
876:
872:
868:
867:67.180.23.147
864:
857:
853:
850:
848:
845:
842:
838:
835:
833:
829:
825:
821:
818:
817:
808:
804:
800:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
749:
746:
740:
737:
734:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
714:
713:
712:
711:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:WP:GOOGLEHITS
672:
671:
670:
667:
665:
664:ApprenticeFan
659:
655:
651:
648:
647:
642:
638:
634:
629:
625:
624:
623:
620:
618:
617:ApprenticeFan
612:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
523:
522:
511:
507:
503:
499:
496:
495:
494:
490:
486:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
457:
453:
449:
444:
443:
442:
438:
434:
430:
425:
421:
418:
417:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
357:
354:
351:
346:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
302:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
266:
265:
261:
260:
255:
254:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
186:
183:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
134:
129:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
65:
61:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1172:
1169:
1155:CarolMooreDC
1149:
1113:
1109:
1088:
1065:
1039:
1025:
1017:
1009:
1001:
992:
971:
963:
951:
943:
935:
905:
897:
889:
880:
855:
851:
836:
819:
747:
692:
663:
649:
616:
607:
590:
573:
537:Paris Hilton
524:
423:
419:
397:Adolf Hitler
355:
344:
304:
247:
226:
184:
155:
138:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1150:Strong keep
1040:Strong Keep
998:Vchimpanzee
932:Vchimpanzee
886:Vchimpanzee
861:—Preceding
718:Niteshift36
654:this search
633:Niteshift36
595:Niteshift36
525:Strong Keep
356:Strong Keep
235:Casmith_789
190:Vejvančický
83:Debbie Rowe
75:Debbie Rowe
968:sad to say
701:message me
1137:Algébrico
1114:merge to
976:celebrity
972:extensive
856:extensive
852:Weak Keep
820:Undecided
559:Fritzpoll
485:Fritzpoll
448:Fritzpoll
380:Fritzpoll
330:Fritzpoll
288:Fritzpoll
212:Fritzpoll
172:Fritzpoll
1119:because
863:unsigned
502:Hairhorn
470:Hairhorn
433:Hairhorn
309:Tris2000
133:View log
1053:CarbonX
993:Comment
980:Bearian
748:Comment
656:, also
650:Comment
555:WP:NRVE
100:protect
95:history
1133:WP:BLP
1110:Delete
1093:WP:GNG
1042:, the
922:(talk)
844:(talk)
799:Paul75
753:Paul75
736:(talk)
591:Delete
350:WP:BIO
345:Delete
270:Jgroub
227:Delete
164:WP:BIO
156:Delete
142:Paul75
128:delete
104:delete
1066:Keeep
751:her.
697:2help
131:) – (
121:views
113:watch
109:links
62:) ·
16:<
1159:talk
1141:talk
1123:and
1101:talk
1089:Keep
1057:talk
1026:Keep
1006:talk
984:talk
964:Keep
940:talk
894:talk
881:Keep
871:talk
837:Keep
828:talk
803:talk
789:talk
775:talk
757:talk
722:talk
683:talk
679:WWGB
673:Per
637:talk
608:Keep
599:talk
582:talk
574:Keep
563:talk
545:talk
533:WP:N
506:talk
489:talk
474:talk
452:talk
437:talk
424:lots
420:Keep
405:talk
384:talk
365:talk
334:talk
313:talk
305:Keep
292:talk
274:talk
248:Keep
239:talk
216:talk
194:talk
185:Keep
176:talk
162:and
160:WP:N
146:talk
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
64:@183
59:talk
46:keep
1112:or
1077:ⒽⒶⓃ
1074:ⓁⒼⓄ
1071:ⒺⓋⒾ
1051:.
785:Bib
328:.
1161:)
1143:)
1135:.
1103:)
1059:)
986:)
978:.
966:-
873:)
830:)
805:)
791:)
777:)
759:)
724:)
703:)
685:)
660:.
639:)
613:.
601:)
584:)
565:)
547:)
527:.
508:)
491:)
476:)
454:)
439:)
431:.
407:)
386:)
378:.
367:)
336:)
315:)
294:)
276:)
241:)
218:)
196:)
178:)
148:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
66:·
56:·
53:X!
1157:(
1139:(
1099:(
1080:②
1055:(
1018:·
1010:·
1002:·
982:(
952:·
944:·
936:·
906:·
898:·
890:·
869:(
826:(
801:(
787:(
773:(
755:(
720:(
699:(
681:(
635:(
597:(
580:(
561:(
543:(
504:(
487:(
472:(
450:(
435:(
403:(
382:(
363:(
352:.
332:(
311:(
290:(
272:(
237:(
214:(
192:(
174:(
144:(
135:)
125:(
123:)
85:(
50:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.