Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of Paul McCartney
These are all valid subtopics that have been split off due to size reasons; one has even been identified as a Good Article.  The deletion rationales above largely smack of  or , dismissing these subjects as "gossipy" despite the fact that they are reliably sourced (and not to tabloids) or nonsensically claiming that they put  weight on one subtopic when they are each one article of many about each of these individuals (in the same way that Frank Sinatra filmography puts undue weight on his film career, I suppose).  The comment that these would only play a "minor part" in biographies is unsupported and simply untrue, as Onefortyone notes.  Each of these individuals was in multiple high-profile relationships with separately notable people.  I imagine there are people who would prefer Wikipedia biographies stick purely to summarizing careers and notable achievements, but whether we like it or not, the personal lives of celebrities is a significant focus of public and media attention, and it's necessary for a full understanding of who they were.  I note that only two other articles in :Category:Personal relationships by individual were not included in this AFD: Personal relationships of Alexander the Great and Personal relationships of James I of England.  These don't pose  problems?  Or is it just more acceptable when the "gossip" about who was banging who comes from Plutarch?  Not to suggest that Elvis is as historically significant as Alexander the Great, but I honestly don't see a difference between maintaining those split-off articles and these, and the OTHERSTUFF comparison is relevant because the deletion nom here is attacking the very concept of having personal relationships as a split-off subtopic.  Other articles on purely personal, and even speculative, biographical detail include Vincent van Gogh's health, Leonardo da Vinci's personal life...  It's not for us to hold our noses in the air and decide that aspects of notable subjects that have been the subject of significant coverage by reliable sources are too low for us to include, and we certainly shouldn't privilege one subject over another just because it's in textbooks and the other has been tabloid fodder
— User:Postdlf, 13:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:UNDUE||WP:UNDUE (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)