Talk:Jim and Mary McCartney

Paul's grandfather in A Hard Day's Night

In the film A Hard Day's Night Wilfrid Brambell plays the character of Paul McCartney's grandfather. The other Beatles express surprise and say that this isn't Paul's grandfather, who lives with him; Paul replies that everyone is entitled to two grandfathers and this is the other one. The article presently identifies this character as Owen Mohan, citing IMDB (which just describes him as "Grandfather"), but when I watched the film on the television the other day I thought I heard the him refer to himself as Joe McCartney. Can anyone clarify? Opera hat (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The film was totally fictional, even though it featured The Beatles as themselves. Brambell was only acting the part of McCartney's grandfather, and his role had no connection with McCartney's real parentage.--andreasegde (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I know. I was just wondering whether either of McCartney's grandfathers did live with him, and if so which. Opera hat (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never read anything about it, but after a quick look at the article, and the help of excel, I worked out that Jim's father was 76 years old (if still alive) when Paul was born, and Mary's father was 63 (if still alive). The McCartneys moved about a lot when Paul and Michael were young, but grandfathers (or grandmothers) were never mentioned as living with the family. It's possible, but not on the evidence. Good question, BTW. :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Opera hat (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable biography

It's plainly clear that they don't deserve their own article at Wikipedia. Kith and kin of famous people are nothing, if they have no merit by their own lives. Sorry to shit on your fantasy, Beetle brains. Catterick (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the respectful comment to editors who've worked hard here. By the way - you might have noticed that this has been classified as a "Good Article" above. Any idea what that means? Tvoz/talk 07:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Catterick doesn't realise that this article is basically about McCartney's childhood. Maybe he thinks McCartney is not notable enough as well? :))--andreasegde (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

McCartney's childhood doesn't need its own article and if it was about him, then the title would reflect that. Useless fancruft. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Good old Catterick changed his name to A Merry Old Soul, and comes back to deliver more acidic comments. To quote an editor who blocked Mr. Happy Catterick: "Stirring up trouble is all you do around here, and that is unacceptable." 'Nuff said?--andreasegde (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. They are not notable in their own right. Great, they had a famous son. So did lots of other people. Notability is NOT inherited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.133.89 (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You have no concept of what makes a person the way they are. It is their upbringing and genes. McCartney's parents had a direct influence on their son, which is what made him the person he is. Are you not like your own parents? Think about it. --andreasegde (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You have no concept of Wikipedia's guidelines. Praytellus where it says someone is notable just because they had a 'direct influence' on their famous offspring. Whats next, an article for Elton John's mum? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.91.80 (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't like your parents much. :) --andreasegde (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You obviously can't answer my question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.144.10 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't know about formatting replies.--andreasegde (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of incivility here but no evidence that the subjects deserve their own Wikipedia article. They can, of course, be briefly discussed (and probably are) within the Paul McCartney article. If anyone has any rational argument why this James and Mary Mccartney are notable, they should put it here. If I don't find any valid argument within a reasonable amount of time, I will nominate this article for deletion (if I remember, that is). Thanks. TheScotch (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Two articles

Why do they have an article togehter? Would it be more appropriate with an article for Jim and one for Mary alone? Or am i far off here? 85.165.143.47 (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Some people have actually suggested there should not be any article about them at all.

IMHO, as Mary died so early, it is better that the two of them are together.--andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If these two were both independently notable, they could each have their own article. If they were strongly professionally associated and notable (if they were a well-known singing duo like Jan and Dean, for example), they could share a single article. I don't see what Mary's early death has to do with anything. TheScotch (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mary's death cemented a bond between her son and another boy who had also lost his mother at an early age. They were called Paul and John.--andreasegde (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

By "anything" I mean anything having to do with the actual subject of this section of the discussion page, which is why Jim and Mary McCartney "have an article together", the question 85.165.143.47 asked. That the mothers of Paul McCartney and John Lennon both died while McCartney and Lennon were teenagers is entirely irrelevant to this question as far as I can see. TheScotch (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad we've sorted that one out.--andreasegde (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to take that as a retraction, which should mean that we now have a concensus that there should not exist a shared "Jim and Mary McCartney" Wikipedia article. That leaves us four possibilities: 1) each has his own article, 2) Jim has his own article and Mary doesn't have hers, 3) Mary has his own article and Jim doesn't have his, or 4) neither has a Wikipedia article. The choice will, of course, depend on whether either or both are notable, a matter to be addressed in the section above. TheScotch (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take option 5) leave it as it is.--andreasegde (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Bringing back discussion on the article's notability

The same discussion was started in 2011 but wasn't resolved, so I figured that it should be restarted. Yeah, I think it is very clear that the context of the article in non-notable, we can't just say that the family of an influential figure is notable by itself. And yes, the article has GA status granted in 2007, but that doesn't have to affect the discussion on its notability, as the subject was never resolved. So, I think that the article's GA status should be cut off and the article placed in AfD, because as I said, it lacks notability and interest. - Phill24th (talk). 09:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Introduction is inaccurate but can't be directly edited

Hello. Since Mary's maiden name was changed by her father before her birthday, when he was in school, her maiden name was Mohin not Mohan. The introduction needs fixing. 174.3.185.67 (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC) C

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim and Mary McCartney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606081949/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/blitz.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/maritime/exhibitions/blitz/blitz.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117235953/http://magicalbeatletours.com/tour_wirral.htm to http://magicalbeatletours.com/tour_wirral.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jim and Mary McCartney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117021011/http://www.monaghanlive.com/_general/MonaghanLive.com.asp to http://www.monaghanlive.com/_general/MonaghanLive.com.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020174240/http://liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/exhibitions/mccartney/home.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/mol/exhibitions/mccartney/home.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• 16a0f15d31f4c759c55c205f72a6109c--john-paul-paul-mc(1).jpeg.jpg
• 26a4efdeb5f6fff263cefef6b02a29ee(1).jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Community reassessment: Jim and Mary McCartney

Jim and Mary McCartney

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Kept The good article process does not deal with notability so those arguments for delisting don't hold any water here. Dead links are not a reason in itself to delist and the non-notabiltiy of the sources has not been established. Not sure where the copyright violations comes from, but if that is the case it should be delisted, but it needs some evidence to be presented AIRcorn (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Quite frankly it’s beyond me how this qualifies as a “good article”. I’m trying to even find the good article reviews of this page from 2007, to no avail. For years, people have questioned the not-inherited notability of these two people yet Beatles stans have taken personal offense to it. For one, I question the notability myself. Mrs. Mary McCartney died a decade before “Let it Be” was written and it’s not as if she gets writing credit for it; the inspiration behind it is beautiful and all, but being the parent of a famous person isn’t WP:GNG. And Mr. Jim McCartney doesn’t have a music career to speak of, he was an amateur, so how is this a good article in the music category? Secondly, just about all these links are dead, not reliable sources, or fan blogs are used as sources (unacceptable). This article is really just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool, where the notability stands on Paul McCartney. And it clearly relies on primary Beatles sources. I won’t go so far as to say some original research was done, but a lot of this info isn’t even verifiable.Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• The GA review is quite easy to find, it is in the archive of the article talk page here. It still appears to be GA quality to me. The majority of the article is not sourced to primary sources or fan blogs but two quality biographies (Spitz and Miles) which are reliable secondary sources. If you have notability concerns, nominate it for deletion - it already survived an AfD in 2014. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If I wanted to nominate this article for deletion I would have done that instead of this. But this article is two-in-one so that’s futile regardless. Also, isn’t the Spitz biography alleged to have “factual errors”? And Miles’s is apparently accused of revisionist history from McCartney’s first person perspective (and he was directly involved). Trillfendi (talk) 04:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know exactly where Spitz and Miles fall on the Mark Lewisohn to Albert Goldman scale of Beatle bios - my point was more that they are both major works by reputable mainstream publishing houses and therefore it was unfair of you to characterize the references as being primary sources and blogs. The article became a GA in 2007 (and unfortunately its author Andreasedge has long since retired) so it may well be that it could use a overhaul but I don’t see it as an obvious fail. Perhaps it would be helpful if you pointed to specific GA criteria in which you feel it is lacking? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

It wasn’t even those books that I was referring to as blogs. It’s obvious crap like [www.classicbands.com/RuthMcCartneyInterview.html this], and for God’s sake, websites called “magicbeatlestours.com”.Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Is that really "obvious crap"? Classicbands.com has been running since 2000, isn't user-generated and seems to have editorial oversight [1]. (I did check WP:RSN but couldn't find a discussion about them.) I would have thought they would be ok for just an interview. The other website is being used for a statement that is already sourced to the Miles book, so that could go.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean any blog can get interviews if they just reach out, right. From the looks of it, that website falls into the blog/fansite category rather than a music publication website such as a Pitchfork. It also appears that most if not all of these illustrations violate copyright. Even if this article solely had to rely on these two Beatles biographies, in my opinion it still doesn’t meet GA. Honestly if it was up to me the whole thing would be merged with Personal relationships of Paul McCartney. Trillfendi (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Delist I concur that this should be merged to a Paul McCartney page and shouldn't have become GA in the first place. Many Beatles fans do indeed unfortunately overreact to the idea of deleting pages on relatives. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the band myself, but that doesn't mean I can or should give their family extra leniency. Notability isn't inherited and neither parent is really known for anything of their own merit (i.e. not based on family connections). Even if Jim and Mary did warrant more than just being redirected to something on the Beatle, having a biography with potential factual errors is a concern, so are dead links, and why would people use Google Maps as a source for any claims? See Yew Tree Cemetery, 72 Western Ave, and 12 Ardwick Rd for examples. Excessive family details is also a concern (i.e. I fail to see how it's worth going so much into moving from house to house or "Joe never drank alcohol, went to bed at 10 o'clock every night, and the only swear word he used was 'Jaysus'. Florrie was known as 'Granny Mac' in the neighbourhood and was often consulted when families had problems."). "Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool" seems like an appropriate description to me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural close of this GAR - This is the WP:WRONG VENUE to discuss merging. It still appears to me the that the people suggesting delist are more upset about the very existence of this article than its quality. These concerns should be hashed out at AfD. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I have pointed out many instances of why this article does not meet Good article quality and feel free to visit the page yourself to see exactly what I’m talking about. If one is going to do an article about family members it has to have the same standards as the subject, regardless. Merging with Personal relationships of Paul McCartney was simply my own opinion and a frivolous comment. Not an offical proposal of merging right now. And if it gets to that point, I will propose deletion if I see the need. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If it’s not clear: copyright violations, many, many unreliable sources, and verifiability are the main reasons this is being reassessed. Trillfendi (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear how you got to the copyright violation illustration assertion. Most of these photos are fair use, unless you think the justification forms were done incorrectly? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: if you really consider “magicbeatlestours”, “rockandpopshop”, and “beatlesireland” to be “reliable” sources (see for yourself) then I guess that’s that on that. Trillfendi (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The reliability of a source depends on the content that it is supporting. Twitter, you tube and even tabloids can sometimes be reliable sources. To demonstrate that sources are unreliable it needs to be in the context of the information cited (see WP:RS/N as it says basically this when people make requests). Furthermore the good article criteria are not that strict and do not even require everything to be cited. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not for more info on this. I have no opinion on the sources you mention as I am not familiar with them. All I know was that calling them unreliable was challenged here and it was not adequately rebutted. You might be better starting a merge discussion on the talk page rather than trying to delist it (or make a stronger case related to the criteria). `AIRcorn (talk)

@Aircorn: I’m well aware that there are those rare occasions when YouTube and what not can be a reliable source, but a reliable source but reliable source means it’s not poorly sourced. These random, and in some cases [beatlesireland.com completely defunct] fan pages are just that. The criteria includes verifiability without original research. I’m just looking at what I see in this article, I don’t care about the existence of them. I know we don’t have to cite when they sneezed, ate, and used the bathroom (which this article all but does), but it’s not too much to ask for higher quality sources. When most of these don’t even work how is one able to uphold that Good Quality status? We can’t just go by heresay. Trillfendi (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I just went off what was written here. I briefly looked at the article, enough to judge that it wasn't just Beatles memorabilia with some maps of Liverpool or an obvious delist. My decision was made from what was written here and unfortunately a lot wasn't relevant. If you disagree with the close I am fine with you seeking a second opinion from someone else. I am not sure what the protocol here is, I would assume asking at the talk page here or at WT:GAN would be your best options. AIRcorn (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article has in the last little while been submitted for Good Article reassessment (kept - closed by me) and deletion (no consensus). There is currently some edit warring on whether it should be merged into Personal relationships of Paul McCartney. The merge itself has already occurred here, so it is more a case of whether this article should redirect to that section. I can see arguments both ways, so am pretty much neutral at this stage. AIRcorn (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Support merge - seems a good compromise out of the AfD result. I think I've set everything I need to about the article there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Support merge - clearly the only reason these two have any claim of notability is through their famous son. If Paul McCartney was a rubbish collector in Liverpool, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Virtually every source is a book on either Paul, or the Beatles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop Redirect → The merge doesn't so much as provide a synopsis of Paul McCartney's parents — his mother Mary isn't even mentioned! Mozart's mother, father, and sister each have separate articles devoted to them. The U.S. congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. has a separate Wikipedia article for his father. In fact, the father of John Lennon has a separate article with a designated Wikipedia GA rating. In essence, for those users that want a more detailed account of McCartney's parents, the full article should be kept available. Engines On (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we get those editors, that helped to develop the article, engaged in this discussion? Unfortunately, some major contributors have either retired from Wikipedia or are henceforth unavailable. I had no input in it, but I found the article fascinating. It would be a disservice to the Wikipedia community to only have a merge — it's obvious that a merge would decimate the intriguing contents of the original article — whereby this rush to a "search and destroy" mission is unwarranted. Engines On (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Well let’s see... the first thing we know about Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, besides the fact that he was Austrian, is that his father Leopold was a notable teacher of his era, who also taught him as a child. Obviously for that reason, there are many historical references about his life and compositions that are not substantiated upon the life of Wolfgang. Same with Adam Clayton Powell Sr. who has historical records for himself including United States archives. You’d think common sense was common but sadly it’s not. Many of his family members do not need articles because their notability is inherited, such as his mother Anna Maria and his mother-in-law Cäcilia Weber. That’s why Alfred Lennon’s article was merged to John Lennon’s early life... rightfully so. What did they do that was noteworthy in their lifetime besides be related to a famous musician? That’s what you all don’t seem to get. Wikipedia is not for what people want to know about the family memebers of famous people just because they’re family members. This is not a fan site. If you’re “fascinated” by a random smattering of anecdotes then maybe take a trip to Liverpool. Trillfendi (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I deduce that you're not on a "search and destroy" mission for the loads of prominent figures whose parents and obscure siblings are given individual articles. Alfred Lennon did have a separate article until April 11, 2019, in which I inadvertently gave a heads-up to Ritchie333 for a merge to John Lennon. That action was reckless as well. Anyway, you mentioned on another occasion that Jimi Hendrix doesn't have a separate article for his parents, quite frankly, they merit one too. The Jackson 5 — less noteworthy musicians than either Paul McCartney or Jimi Hendrix — have multiple comprehensive articles about their family, individual articles for both the mother and father and even one afforded a prosaic sibling (talk about a merge). Outside of music, there are individual articles for the mother and father of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. I could go on with others like Einstein and his family, but you get the picture. Engines On (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s almost as if... Joe Jackson was their manager (and to a lesser degree in the early years so was Katherine.) Judging by Hendrix’s article, the only remarkable thing about them was that they were slightly multiethnic which doesn’t make an article. Al’s military career wasn’t exceptional. And still, everything known about them comes from books about their son. See the pattern. Trillfendi (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Good points, Miss. Leopold Mozart had a remarkable career, although the finest contribution to his legacy was his son. Adam Clayton Powell Sr. is historically significant in his own right. Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, having played active roles in the musical careers of their kids, certainly are justified in getting separate articles — the justification for a Randy Jackson article is a puzzlement. Managers such as The Beatles' Brian Epstein and Led Zeppelin's Peter Grant have their Wikipedia articles. I noticed that golfing great Tiger Woods has a Wikipedia article for his dad, but not for his mom. Colonel Woods introduced and taught golf to his son, which was significant enough, but he had a distinguished military career also. Mick Jagger surprisingly had no individual articles reserved for his parents. But — you had me thinking — merely being the progenitor of an extraordinary person, may not necessarily qualify somebody for recognition. A father could be a bum and his fame would be parasitic on his son's reputation and achievement. Conversely, is it fair to suggest (as I did below) that if a luminary doesn't have individual articles for his parents, that it's somehow dimming? Absolutely not! Which renders my argument below, concerning the necessity for an illustrious figure to have separate parent articles, as dubious. However, there's a natural inclination for wanting to know more about those responsible for procreating a genius like Isaac Newton or a stunning beauty like Grace Kelly. We care to know about the parents of a hero, because we care about the hero. Engines On (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. So we go and buy a biography or two about our hero(es) and read to our heart's delight ... Job done, without interfering with the integrity of the encyclopedia. JG66 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, JG66, but don't you think that a musical genius, beloved and revered worldwide for over a half of a century, a force of nature — not just an immense influence, should be an exception? I say absolutely yes!!!! The public wants at its fingertips access, now and for posterity, to information about the ingredients that brought about the great Paul McCartney. Engines On (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No. JG66 (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment In relative terms, Paul McCartney is beyond prominent — he's preeminent! By relegating Paul McCartney's parents to only a merge with brief references, McCartney himself is thus effectively downgraded to a banal level. His parents deserve a unique article, because he's unique. Singling out Paul McCartney for removal of his parents from a separate article, is to imply that he's less than others that have separate articles for their parents. Engines On (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not how any of this works. That's beyond illogical—it's nonsensical. Stupid even. Trillfendi (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Miss, you're responding to an earlier post dated: 05:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC). I've since turned 180° on that specific issue and I credit you for enlightening me. The comment from 05:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC) is the dumbest thing I've ever written. Now, located above that comment and the responses from JG66 and me, is my response to you, which is dated: 05:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC). When shown in context, the evolution in my thinking was kindled by you. Engines On (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• Merge the paucity of in-depth and persistent coverage of the subject in reliable sources makes the subject(s) not independently notable in their own right. Any verifiable material sourced reliably can be merged into the parent article without any particular WP:UNDUE concerns.
  And probably doing Macca a favour to boot... ——SerialNumber54129 08:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Merge this abysmal sack of bollocks and just let it be (a wise woman once said...). Enough is enough! No article on this website should be a bunch of anecdotes about addresses, “first cars”, failed amateur careers, people’s use of the term “Jaysus”, salaries, home values, Google Maps images, privacy violations, and where they were the night of their son’s birth. These people are notable in any dimension. Trillfendi (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The consistent problem with the so-called series of Beatles family members is that they all rely on extracting practivally every other sentence from primary source books—not even about them—and people think adding some dubious secondary sources makes it a “Good Article.” Dig deeper: how is it acceptable for multiple “good articles” to have various references to the Daily Mail which is banned here or absolutely unacceptable things like “magicbeatlestours.com”. But that’s all you can find? What does that tell you? It’s endemic.Trillfendi (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the articles seem to have principally been the work of now retired Andreasegde (talk · contribs). More recent Beatles work has been done by (sadly) now retired GabeMc, JG66 and me, amongst many others. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support merge, without a shadow of a doubt. Having this type of fancruft article on the encyclopedia is an embarrassment. McCartney's status is adequately reflected in the existence of an article dedicated to his personal relationships, and, aside from the section on his formative years at Paul McCartney, all pertinent information on Jim, Mary et al. can be handled there. It's not just with Mac either, this abuse of notability by association: we've got the likes of George Toogood Smith for Lennon. And I don't think a Good Article rating has any bearing on the issue – it merely takes one nominator and one reviewer to decide that such an article merits a place here. Beatlemania in the United Kingdom was a GA until someone (inexpertly) merged it into Beatlemania last December. I work pretty much solely on WP Beatles articles and have written a good few that I believe were and are needed (eg 1965 UK tour, Music of Lennon & McCartney TV special, 1966 tour of Germany, Japan & Philippines, 1967 Bangor TM seminar, Davies' Authorised Biography). But with all the hundreds of sources I own or have access to, and consult regularly, I have never once arrived at the mindset that Jim and Mary McCartney merit a dedicated article on Wikipedia. JG66 (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point. It's often assumed that WP:N is a WP:GA? criterion, which of course it is not. ——SerialNumber54129 07:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that's stupid. Of course a good article has to be notable, how on earth can the article be completely verifiable to reliable sources otherwise? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wot. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen all the GA articles on roads? If it is not notable then they often can be failed for lack of verifiability or even broadness. Notability and quality can be mutually exclusive and we have separate processes to deal with notability. Conversely being a good article should not impact whether an article should be merged. AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Although I've written a few highway / transport GAs such as Dartford Crossing, A82 road, and A303 road, I wrote them because I felt they were notable in their own right - the A303 in particular covers environmental issues, traffic and safety, so even Swampy (who I am reliably informed hates roads) wouldn't mind reading it. But yeah there are plenty of "good articles" like "Iowa State Road 666 starts at Podunk and travels north north eastwards for 14 miles before a junction with state road 678 at the former mining community of Gabble Rachett, oh my god I'm so excited I might just die" that really should be sent to AfD, but last time I tried that a lot of people got mightily upset. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

While there are definitely roads that are notable, I too have participated in road deletion debates for some of the more mundane ones. The general keep argument is along the lines of wikipedia also being a gazetteer, which is helpfully enshrined in WP:5P. A long time ago I had a bit of a clash with some of the road editors on GA issues. Mainly that it was a bit too in house with the wikiproject imposing a lot of style guidelines that were not covered by the criteria and the overuse of primary sources. To be fair they were very pleasant and are usually quite willing to merge non-notable roads together. Doesn't really help the primary source issue, although I do recall an argument that maps are not primary sources which I struggled to follow. And don't get me started on the impact sport specific notability guidelines or fan obsession with pop songs has had on GAs. Once a single sentence stub of a baseball player was nominated (thankfully it failed). Anyway this has already digressed too much. Lets just say this is far from the worst article I have seen that has been classified as good or better with questionable notability (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948 for extreme specificity). Sometimes it is easier to just shrug, be happy that editors want to add content and move on to other issues. AIRcorn (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Exactly, I don't see the harm to the integrity of Wikipedia by maintaining this page for Paul's parents, especially considering some of the junk pages that abound in Wikipedia. I think the McCartney parents page is fine and should remain. Engines On (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I notice that Engines On has been canvassing other users to this debate, something I took great care to avoid in the recent AfD. Indeed, several of the participants in this debate now are here because they were annoyed at missing the AfD as it would have been against policy to notify them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

That is pretty unambiguous. Please don't do that Engines On, it only weakens your case and the !vote of any person you ask to comment here. I added a talk page notification at the Beatles wikiproject when opening the merge discussion and that should suffice in letting any interested people know. AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was pushing the envelope, so I'm sorry if it was misinterpreted as recalcitrance. Engines On (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Can the closer delist this article and record it in the article history if it closes as a merge. It should link to this discussion. Feel free to ping me so I can do it if you want. If it is not merged then nothing needs to be done regarding Good status. AIRcorn (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support merge a fair compromise for those who want more than what the Paul McCartney article already has without the needless fluff this page has, and his parents simply don't warrant their own articles for reasons I gave in the AFD. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

To dismiss this article as frivolous is unfounded. The McCartneys — before there even was a Paul — led engrossing lives. The page has material that explores the McCartney family tree which included upholsterers, plumbers, and painters originally from Ireland. We learn that Paul's dad was involved in the production of armaments during World War II and endured air-raids in Liverpool from German bombers. We learn, sadly, that Paul's mom didn't live to witness her son's phenomenal success. Engines On (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Merge – looking at the references I honestly have no idea how this became a GA. It should be delisted no matter what but since both Jim and Mary really don't have that much notability, other than being the parents of Paul and Mary being the inspiration of "Let It Be", I think it's ok to merge it. If they do merge though, I think their images should still be used. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely the images must remain. If this article redirects to an inadequate section of the Personal relationships of Paul McCartney article, then how does that benefit the Wikipedia community or the public at large? It doesn't! The contents of the debated article contain easily accessible absorbing information. For example, you alluded to the impetus for the song "Let It Be" — learning how happy Paul was to "visit" his mom again in a dream, he had a dozen years after she died, was quite moving. Engines On (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Paul is so incredibly fantastic that I welcome more pages regarding him, while this article on his parents should maintain its individuality. It shouldn't be redirected to a merged watered-down section in the Personal relationships of Paul McCartney article. As I said earlier in the discussion (above) with Trillfendi, she adjusted my viewpoint 180° pertaining to my ridiculous implication that, not having an article about a superstar's parents, diminishes the superstar. I thank her for setting me straight on that matter. But, I think the McCartney parents warrant a special article, not so much based in notions of notability, but rather in having a page that expands knowledge of the roots of the great Paul McCartney. Engines On (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Paul is so incredibly fantastic that I welcome more pages regarding him" The second pillar, however says "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This right here is the problem. Beatles mania should never blind logic. Trillfendi (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment We acknowledge ruling, political, and banking dynasties, but the dynasty appellation can also be applied to those attaining extraordinary heights in other fields of endeavor, such as music and the fashion industry — as is the case for Paul and his daughter Stella respectively. The McCartneys have achieved a status that kindles the pursuit of further exploration into their beginnings. The McCartneys are a dynasty, therefore that status legitimizes the need for an individual page for the forebears of that dynasty. There is a plethora of illegitimate and questionable individual pages on Wikipedia, but the Jim and Mary McCartney article isn't one of them. We mustn't deprive music scholars, fans, and the general public of the convenience of this valuable resource. Engines On (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Engines On, you quite frankly are trying way too hard to get this page kept. Please give it a rest already. You need to view this from an objective and professional perspective, not through the eyes of a fan. The quote "The McCartneys are a dynasty, therefore that status legitimizes the need for an individual page for the forebears of that dynasty" is quite a stretch, and so is calling this article a "valuable resource" when all of the material of encyclopedic value is already included on Paul's page and/or the article on his relationships. Just because Paul is hugely famous doesn't automatically mean all of his family members are. We're not supposed to be a Beatles fansite or a family history site. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can somebody please close this discussion? Everyone except one person wants a merge. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Two weeks later. Will someone please – an admin, or not? – give a verdict and close the discussion. Consensus has been well established. Given the lack of a resolution here, the message appears to be that editors would be better advised to continue undoing one another's changes and ignore article talk pages.

Put it this way, if a sole editor's argument that Paul McCartney is such a popular cutie-pie and the McCartney family are a "dynasty" suffices for retaining the article, I'll start one on Harold and Louise Harrison. Readers could then learn that Harry H. became a hero to McCartney and other students at Quarry Bank when he marched into the school and punched out a teacher who had got physical with young George; and that, once widowed, Harry became a magnet for female admirers in Los Angeles ... Vital information (not) – but you get the drift. JG66 (talk) 09:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Every irrelevant Beatles family member (who isn’t Stella, Sean, or Julian) vehemently require reassessment, deletion, or merging by now. Period. It’s endemic. What in God’s green earth did Julia Baird do to get a "good article"? What did George Smith do besides, in "Mimi Smith"'s words "go playing ducks in the bath with him" (John)? It’s a shameful abuse of BLP, my goodness, why do we need pictures of these dead people’s houses? Oh but when I point these things out it’s "pointism" It’s the most unreasonable, preposterous, and stupid thing I’ve come across on this website. Beatles memorabilia with some Google maps! Trillfendi (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

"... who isn’t Stella, Sean, or Julian". Er, there are a few more, you know – Dhani Harrison, Zak Starkey. JG66 (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s implied. Those who have established careers are notwithstanding (the Georgia May Jaggers, Liv Tylers, Wolfgang van Halens, Zoë Kravitzes of the world). Other than that this family cookout going on has to end. Trillfendi (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.