Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Lynch King, Sr.

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, non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie Lynch King, Sr.

Leslie Lynch King, Sr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO Strothra (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Man was biological father of a U.S. President and the U.S. President was first named for him and his uncaring encounter with Ford spurred Ford to legally change his name to his stepfather. There are 36 articles on Wikipedia about the parents of Presidents (and a category). He is part of a collection of notable people. Americasroof (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. --Strothra (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Otherstuffexists is not a policy. It is an essay. Americasroof (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but it, as other essays and guidelines, are based in and derived from policy. As an essay in Wiki namespace it reflects a community understanding of the processes that underlie Wiki. Further, this particular essays points out the logical fallacy of making such an argument. --Strothra (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, notability is not inherited. The man's only claim to fame was being a president's biological father. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's an entire book about the fathers of American presidents. He's got a profile in there. That's good enough for me. Is Wikipedia really better without this information? Zagalejo^^^ 04:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gerald Ford. All that needs to be known about him is already in that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This information is important enough to keep, but I think it can be reasonably pared down and merged into the article on President Ford. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why pare down? We have the space to include more details than a paper encyclopedia. This isn't about a video game character; it's about the immediate relative of a world leader. It's very plausible that people could find this information useful. Zagalejo^^^ 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure that all of the intimate details of this man's life is worthy of an encyclopedia article, therefore I would say pare it down, and include it in the Gerald Ford article, because the Gerald Ford article details the life of Gerald Ford, not Leslie King,Sr. True, while not limited by paper, that is does not mean that the floodgates are open to a biography for anyone who has had an influence on anyone of note. I don't support deletion, because there is something meaningful here ... I'm just not of the opinion that there is notability to establish an entire article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I think enough information exists out there that we could build this into a decent article. For example, that one book at Google Books would be great, if I could get a hold of it. I understand your slippery slope concerns, but I don't think it's such a stretch that someone might want additional info on a president's father. Every junior high history paper on Ford is bound to begin with some info on his parents. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep father of a president You've Got Mail! (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whatever one may think about grandfather, father of a President is certainly notable. DGG (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. It is incorrect to think that notability cannot derive from association with another person, or that it cannot come posthumously. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Zagalejo's note about the person having an independent entry in a history book is convincing enough. Such coverage is sufficient grounds for passing WP:N and WP:BIO guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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.