Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pattie Mallette

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pattie Mallette

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

The majority of the sources provided in the article deal only with Mallette's status as the son of Justin Bieber, and much of the coverage of her is only a result of this. Notability is not inherited. I don't think her other claim to notability, writing an autobiography that made it to #17 on the NYT Best Seller list, is not enough to meet the notability criteria for authors. I believe the combination of these two possible sources of notability is not enough to meet the general notability guideline. IgnorantArmies – 08:53, Thursday November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IgnorantArmies – 09:10, Thursday November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. IgnorantArmies – 09:10, Thursday November 22, 2012 (UTC)

Delete not notable. Fails WP:BIO --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Multiple reliable sources cover the subject in depth: The Canadian Press, USA Today, Daily Mail, Seattle Times, National Post, Washington Post, Associated Press. Nom has cited WP:NOTINHERITED however it is an essay, not a notability guideline, and shouldn't be used to over-rule WP:GNG. She also may meet WP:AUTHOR #3, "multiple independent periodical articles" about the book. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think the articles are enough. They only mention her as "Justin Beiber's Mom"...in other words they are articles about her being "Justin Beiber's mom", not about her doing anything on her own. She wrote a book. That does not qualify her for WP:AUTHOR, I have written 3 books, and I'm not qualified. It's great that she is Justin Beiber's mom, but what has she done on her own? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She wrote a book, which is what the sources cover. Being Justin Beiber's mom is irrelevant, WP:NOTINHERITED shouldn't be used in a situation where the person has done something for which there is WP:GNG coverage in multiple reliable sources, or WP:AUTHOR #3, "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." These sources are all about Pattie Mallette and her book which has received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" in many very reliable national and international sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although WP:INHERITED is admittedly only an essay, its basic message is the reason we don't have articles on Suri Cruise, Malia Obama, or the members of One Direction, despite their extensive coverage in reliable sources. The essay's points are certainly relevant here, in particular: "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." If you look at the references in the article—excluding Bieber and Mallette's biographies—Mallette is only mentioned in the context of being Justin Bieber's mother. From the sources you linked above, we have: "Bieber's mother", "Justin Bieber's Mom" (twice), "Justin Bieber's mother", and "Bieber mom" in the articles' headlines, and each of the articles heavily refers to Bieber. The book itself is even subtitled The Story of Justin Bieber's Mom. No articles have been written solely dealing with Mallette and her book without mentioning her son—the reviews and articles are merely an extension of the substantial coverage of Justin Bieber. IgnorantArmies – 08:49, Saturday November 24, 2012 (UTC)

She wrote a book that is covered in multiple reliable sources. WP:INHERITED doesn't exclude real world accomplishments. The spirit of the inheritance essay is for relatives who have done nothing other than be a relative. She has actually done something, she is an actual writer who published a book which has been covered in multiple reliable sources per the essay AUTHOR #3 and guideline GNG. It doesn't matter that the book is about being a relative. The inheritance essay is not designed to trump accomplishments based on what the accomplishment is. Don't confuse being a relative (non-accomplishment) with writing a book (accomplishment). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe we should not delete this article due to the many sources discussed above. --Metsfreak2121 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, this article meets the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. The subject additionally meets the subject-specific guidelines for authors, in accordance with criteria #3 and reflected in the sources provided. Certainly, by all means, notability is not inherited. Yet, at the same time, notability cannot be dismissed due to inheritance. The fact that the subject is related to a famous individual does not negate the fact that the subject has achieved an independent accomplishment. Ignore the fact that the subject is the mother of a notable public figure. Now take a look at the article from a neutral point of view. The subject has written a memoir that has received international press and positive reviews on a global scale. The book was additionally listed on the New York Times Bestseller list during the first week of release. To present the belief that the subject has accomplished this feat based merely on the fact that she is related is a personal point of view, lacking neutrality. The subject wrote the bestselling book. The son didn't. (Note that I am the article creator.) Cindy(talk to me) 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be willing to change my opinion of someone could point out a SINGLE source about this person that does not mention that she is Justin Beiber's mom. Surely there must be a single source that will portray her as notable enough to stand on her own merits? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing a bestselling book does count as a legitimate accomplishment which renders her notable in her own right. While it's true that notability is not inherited, that means she's not automatically entitled to an independent article if being a celebrity's mom is the only claim of notability you can make — it does not mean that happening to be a celebrity's mom permanently precludes her from attaining independent notability for a separate achievement, such as writing a book which sells in sufficient quantities to land on one of the most influential and prestigious bestseller lists in the world. It is not necessary, furthermore, for a source to entirely fail to mention her celebrity connection at all to be valid for our purposes — it is only necessary that at least some of our sources discuss her in the context of the book, which they do. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WEAKEST KEEP I have taken the trouble to really research this and take everyone's points into account. I will (begrudgingly) change my opinion. It was a best selling book, and she did write it. But but being somebody's mom and writing a book about it really stretches the limits of inherited notability I think. For the sake of a smooth consensus, and so we don't have to see this turkey again, I withdraw my opinion to delete. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. She will always be Bieb's mom. No amount of success will stop that association from being mentioned whenever she's discussed. The sources about her and her book are sufficient for the GNG. That said, this article's a bit of a mess. It's more a synopsis of her autobiography than an actual biography put together from secondary sources. It relies too much on the book for biog. details, and that's a bit problematic. The Interior (Talk) 20:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable person, in my opinion because she is a recognisible figure. There are clear sources on the page to support. Sure, I understand the inherit position, but there is more as bearcat noted. Outback the koala (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2012 (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.