Deletion of Relatives of John Lennon

Comment: These individuals lack any notability other than being mentioned in accounts of John Lennon, so the basic facts about their influence on his life should be merged to his article. Being related to a notable person and being mentioned in stories about him does not create the degree of notability needed to satisfy . As for the merge making the Lennon article too long, some details in these articles should be omitted, such as that Mimi "did have a stainless-steel double-drainer kitchen sink installed in 1961 that she was very proud of." There is also the license plate number and later career accomplishments of the driver who struck and killed Julia. In other words, the encyclopedic material could be merged into the Lennon article without adding the total verbiage of the two related articles. In addition, there is duplication of genealogical information in the two articles
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: For a while now I've been feeling that availability of reliable sources (or lack thereof) ought to trump some invented scale of ''potential'' "notability" based on level of achievement. These people have been extensively documented in a wide range of publications, that in essence is "notability"; they are far more "notable" than people who qualify for an article because they had a top 40 hit in Luxembourg but about whom next to nothing has ever been written (). If that's not good enough, then I refer you to Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave and others who have also illustrated the ''importance'' of these people. Wikipedia is not paper, and articles like this do the encyclopedia credit because we have the resources to write about them and paper enyclopedias do not
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: I appreciate where you're coming from, but from , "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability," which in my opinion is what is happening here.  I think you're going to be hard pressed to get consensus to delete either of these
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: John Lennon's grandparents, distant cousins, childhood schoolmates, or bus drivers" (from the nom) do not, should not, and will never have articles about them - nor is there a floodgate of such articles waiting to open. That's a straw man argument, and kind of silly to boot - Julia and Mimi were both very important to John personally and professionally - they are arguably the greatest female (or not)  influences on him prior to Yoko Ono - and their articles give us insight into him that adds to our knowledge.  Exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Indeed, Wikipedia is not paper, and we do not have the kinds of space constraints that Britannica does - but we try to keep the length of articles in somewhat manageable form, so we create sub-articles such as these so as to not overload people.  If we had no such concerns, then these two women  would likely each have a major section in John's article, as long as their separate articles or nearly so. That would be unmanageable, so they are forked off and people who want to learn more about these influential individuals can do so, while those who only want the overview get it in the main article.   Just like every other complex Wikipedia article.   I also object to the implicit denigration of "mother and aunt" as if that's prima facie not enough to make someone notable - is Freddie more notable because he's male?   These are GA for reasons, and this nomination is way off base.   I'd be happy to see this |snowed, but I'll leave that to someone else, as I've edited some on Beatles articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)