Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Dylan

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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Dylan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Incidentally, if the woman's only real claim to fame is genuinely that she married someone for some temporary period of time, she should not have her own article at all. She should instead merely have a redirect to [famous-person-she-married#Personal Life] (or whatever). I am not sure it's clear that this is her only claim to fame: both articles mention that she inspired at least some of Dylan's lyrics. But again, if this is all she did, then she should be mentioned in the appropriate article about Dylan or about his works." -previous editor also echoed by a second and third editor. I've looked over the article and it does not seem to meet the level of notability in WP:notable. Even if it is not deleted it is vastly bloated with unsourced material, gossip and OR. Alatari (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I don't know what bizarre process breakdown led to this silliness, but Sara Dylan (also known as Sara Lownds) is highly notable. There are shelves of books written about Dylan,[1] most of which mention Sara, because Dylan wrote many of his best songs about or to her. 1329 Google books hits. 101 Google scholar hits. 33,900 google hits. [2][3][4][5][6] There is nothing to discuss here. — goethean 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All those books are about Dylan, not Sara. The songs he wrote about her, their marriage and divorce all belong in his article. She needs to have done something notable onto herself to get her own lengthy article with such extreme bloat. The majority of the article is bloated, unsourced and WP:fancruft. Incidently I am the third editor on the talk page to suggest that her article doesn't meet the criteria of WP:notable. Alatari (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of all those hits found I can not find any biography of Sarah. If she has one published then that would nullify my objection. Alatari (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So improve the article. She is notable. There are many, many good sources. — goethean 13:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the job of the editors that keep adding paragraph after paragraph of unsourced material. I'm not tracking down sources they were responsible for adding in the first place. Alatari (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "not your job" to improve the article, then you should go find some other article which you do think that it is "your job" to improve rather than wasting people's time with a futile AFD. — goethean 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are trying to push the work of other editors that add extensive unsourced material onto me? It would be better to just delete all the unsourced material. The whole articles existence has been questioned three times now. I am improving Wikipedia by deleting an article that is not notable. Alatari (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing anything on anyone. Either improve the article or don't. But nominating an article on a topic that is clearly notable is a waste of everyone's time. — goethean 14:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously disagree and that is why it is nominated as suggested by two previous editors. You want to keep the article so the burden of finding her own published biography, proof that she wrote some of his songs, recorded and sold her own widely purchased music, successful career as a model, parts in movies or television shows, etc, something that doesn't obviously go in his article (songs about her, marriage, divorce) is upon you. Alatari (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not need to do any of those things in order to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The relevant policy is WP:BASIC:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Sara Dylan have been the subject of multiple secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, an independent of the subject. Therefore, Sara Dylan is notable. — goethean 15:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan was the subject of all the sources you listed, not Sara. She was mentioned briefly in a few paragraphs or less as an event in his life. Maya Angelou's has her husband's sir name Tosh Angelo and he is mentioned in 6 pages of Googlescholar links but he also doesn't rate having his own page. [7]. If she wrote poems about Tosh, does that give him his own page? It is not notable enough because it was about him and he didn't accomplish anything. Mary Patterson Leary was Langston Hughes mother and mentioned repeatedly in works about him [8]. All she did was birth a famous man but his father was an active abolitionist in his own right and has a page Charles Henry Langston. Alatari (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Nominator.
- Per: WP:NOTINHERITED -Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, 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. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."
- Per: WP:ENTERTAINER -
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - No. She has only one credit at IMDB [9].
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - her ex-husband yes, no evidence she has a cult following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - She has not been prolific or innovative as a model. She has one Harper's photo in 1965 [10] and the cover of Dimestore Medicine [11] and she never was cover model. Alatari (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the duplicate delete !vote above. The nomination is considered the delete !vote itself. However, comments are always welcome. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If inherent non-notability due to being married to someone is a problem, then why does Anne Boylen have an article? Seriously? This AFD is reflective of systemic bias and sexism at its worst. She meets GNG criteria with coverage in reliable third-party sources. That said, the article needs improvement and work, but that's not a criteria for AfD. SheeshMontanabw^(talk) 01:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boleyn is the subject of numerous books in her own right:

The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: The Most Happy by Eric Ives

The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII by Retha M. Warnicke

Anne Boleyn: A new life of England's tragic queen by Joanna Denny

Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's Obsession by Elizabeth Norton

The Lady In The Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn by Alison Weir

And more[12]. Are there a similar number of books about Sara Dylan as a primary subject? Because I can't find them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Used hyperbole to make my point; plenty of people are famous simply for being married to a famous person, Boleyn a prime example, she's been dead about 500 years, so plenty of time to write books; here we have plenty of people with WP:GNG-passing wikipedia articles don't have books written about them, my favorite being Lawnchair Larry. Seriously, if I put that up for an AfD, people would scream bloody murder. But women? No, not notable. Double standard alive and well. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anne Boleyn was Queen of England. That is not at all comparable to what we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sara Dylan does not have any books solely written about her, unlike Anne Bolyn. I'm not nominating Hugh Heffner's or Howard Stern's (ex)wifes (and I noticed that Howard's first wife might be notable enough to have an article but she does not) for deletion because they have at least 15 entries of professional acting on IMDB plus cover spreads in magazines. I researched other similar situations of famous men's wives and their own Wikipedia pages to convince myself I hadn't made a mistake in this nomination. Sara Dylan has one acting credit for a minor film and no covers as a model. We have to go by the rules stated in WP:PEOPLE. Lawnchair Larry is notable because of item 3)Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. by being the first man to fly a lawn chair to 15,000 feet. Has Sara Dylan done anything unique and innovative to make her notable? Did she write some of Bob's songs? Did she manage his act? Did she perform her own music anywhere? Alatari (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is from guidelines of invalid arguments when determining notable criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia that needs repeating. WP:NOTINHERITED Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Alatari (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was a significant and often written about muse of Dylans. For a less significant person than Dylan much of what is in the article would already have been merged into the main article, but that article is already large enough and if placed there would have to be separated out because of WP:SIZE. She is also mentioned quite frequently in Dylan song articles, so WP has already created a need for more information than just "Dylan's ex-wife". A special thanks to the nominator for removing the non-referenced fluff from the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - So are you basing your decision on the basis as a muse which is covered on the section Sara Dylan#As subject of songs? It's sourcing needs to be airtight and it's a mess. Heylin is mentioned but no links provided to his Dylan biography. Unattributed claim to generic fans and a few explicit statements that are unsourced. The last line is solid and sourced and the statement on their son's opinion also solid. If someone who has an interest in the subject, knowledge of the sources (I came to the article to read about Dylan from YouTube video so obviously not my strength) and is motivated would please work up that section with at least 4 independent sources then I would switch my vote to keep. Alatari (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answers. Your nomination is based on "not famous" whereas the criteria for Wikipedia is "notable" and that the article was a mess - which is not grounds for AfD and save that after your good work it's a reasonably solid article. WP is a work in progress and all articles need work. All the references are solid with the exception of the fan site at Tripod. BTW I am basing my decision on the fact she was his muse for 15-odd years including the inspiration for some of the most significant parts of his work. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment actually I nominated on the criteria that she does not meet notable level of entertainer:fashion model (only 1 picture in Harpers) or entertain:actress (only 1 film credit) and that she does not inherit her husband's notoriety. There needs to be 4 independent sources supporting your reasoning that she is notable due to her muse status to Bob Dylan. There are only 2 sources and several uncited claims leaving the section that supports her inclusion in Wikipedia as a muse to Bob not sufficiently supported to keep. This needs to be corrected. If 4 independent sources for her being a muse can't be found then it fails the Basic notable test. Alatari (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ON the subject of a "muse" this gives even better examples: Marie-Thérèse Walter and Fernande Olivier were both primarily notable for their association with Picasso. Sara Dylan definitely in the same camp; works created either about her or inspired by her. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then PLEASE just provide 2 more sources in the relevant section and resolve the debate. I would be starting from scratch spending 6 to 8 hours reading sources looking for the relevant information while you and others are quite familiar and could find the information and add the 2 additional sources (especially something from Heylin which is quoted and unsourced) to her article thus shutting down this debate and closing the nomination. Alatari (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally, the original nomination language is from Telsa and also TheScotch who both questioned the very existence of her page. If I hadn't seen and evaluated their objections I would not have made this nomination. See Talk:Sara Dylan#Should this article exist?. Alatari (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alatari. Comment. As you confirm that you now think that Sara Dylan is notable with this post on another user's page, I suggest you withdraw your AfD promptly. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with points above by goethean, Montanbw and Richhoncho. Sara D is famous in a way comparable to Anne Boleyn and Fernande Olivier; her marriage to a major artist and her role in his music makes her notable. The article should be improved and I'll work on it over next few days. A useful source is The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia by Michael Gray, since Gray provides meticulous references for all his information. Mick gold (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have substantially re-written the article with new cites for reference. Mick gold (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2014 (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.