Deletion of Jim and Mary McCartney (2nd nomination)

Comment: per , as well as being well sourced, and having already survived one AfD nomination with good arguments that should be taken into consideration for this nomination. I agree there is an abundance of trivial/fan cruft, but feel the solution is paring down content (indeed, there is lots of junk here) rather than outright deletion. Yeah, I get the WP:INHERIT arguments, but consider the intrinsic value of wikipedia by providing articles that assuage a wider public curiosity that comes with one of the most famous persons in the world. Including deep detail on family lineage and parents in the McCartney article would make it unwieldily, so this spin off is appropriate. It’s kind of the same reason we have a separate article on Abraham Lincoln’s mother, who was equally unremarkable on her own
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:SPINOFF)

Comment: I totally agree with the nominator's reasoning – the whole article just reads like an episode of ''Who Do You Think You Are?''... interesting titbits for anyone interested in the subject matter, but fundamentally, the only interest comes from them being related to a celebrity. The subjects are not individually notable at all, their notability is entirely  from being the parents of their famous sons. Or, to put it another way... would they qualify for a Wikipedia article if their sons hadn't obtained a measure of notability? I can't see how this passes , as the subject for the sources used in the article is Paul McCartney, not his parents. Of course there are reliable sources in existence, being as one of their sons became internationally famous, and any decent biography needs to talk about its subject's background and childhood, but it doesn't make the parents famous if they are mentioned in biographies about their children – the only thing I can see that could possibly count towards their own individual notability is Jim writing a couple of songs that Paul later recorded... and even then, he only recorded them because it was his own father (would they have made it onto record any other way?), and they only made it onto a deluxe CD package of outtakes released more than twenty years later. The argument that "unencyclopedic language should just be removed" – well, almost everything I can see in the article is unencyclopedic, and therefore the arguments for  don't apply either, because what would be left are just a few lines which are already included in Paul McCartney#Early life anyway. I don't see a redirect as a solution because Paul McCartney's children James and Mary are probably better known now to the public than his parents, and therefore the more likely search targets – I cannot see a situation where someone would be looking for either Jim or Mary McCartney that wasn't in connection with their son's childhood, instead of for them personally
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED||WP:GNG||WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: Meets .   subject is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: I don't understand the hostility towards this article. It doesn't read at all like a "Daily Mail gossip piece" to me and even if it did, that's not a valid basis for deletion. As for "creepy and instrusive"... intrusive to whom? The subjects have been dead for decades. As I said at the GA reassessment, it is not true, as Trillendi keeps saying, that the sourcing is poor - it is primarily based on two Beatles biographies by respected authors (Spitz and Miles) and established mainstream publishers (I disagree with Ritchie's doubting of their reliability). In any case, there are other quality sources available, such as Mark Lewisohn's ''Tune in'', which could be used instead.  says,  "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG", and GNG is clearly met here due to the level of attention from reliable sources that the Beatles naturally attract
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED)

Comment: This article was nominated for deletion before, but the consensus was keep. Parents were mentioned in the media multiple times and received notable coverage from major media sources. See also . &mdash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SPINOUT)

Comment: Fascinating AfD and very good nom.  This article (and other Beatles-linked fan articles) have no long-term future on WP.  The !votes of this AfD versus the last is in keeping with the Beatles' slowly fading mega-notability.  However, unlike lesser cases on WP (whose linked articles get deleted faster as ), the still mega-notability of the Beatles gives a halo of protection.  This couple is chronicled (and not just a passing mention) in many Beatles/Paul McCartney books and "technical" WP:GNG arguments can be made (I have seen worse on AfD).  Given the Beatles still mega-notability, it is fair to give readers access to such an article.   "No consensus" will be a fair outcome here, but their inevitable "delete-day" will ultimately approach
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)