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.
comment I find it interesting this is listed in politics. Helena Carr is not a politician. It just goes to prove that people think her notability is inherited from being married to a major politician. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not "politics" but "politics-related", which is appropriate to the person in question; she is related to politics by marriage. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
every one of those article mentions she is Bob Carr's wife during his time as Premier. Take Bob Carr away I doubt the press would be as interested. did the press take an interest in her before he was Premier, no.LibStar (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Helena Carr has deliberately maintained a low public profile, but the extent of the coverage she's received over time means she meets WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP article clearly identifies her as being notable in her own right.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.181 (talk • contribs)
Keep. The fact is that she has significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. the Sydney Morning Herald, as shown by WWGB's links) and meets WP:GNG. As Melburnian points out, WP:NOTINHERITED does not negate notability, it just means "she is the wife of a famous politician" would be a poor argument (one which I don't think anyone is making). "Would she get that coverage if she was not related to Bob Carr?" Well, that's not really for us to decide. But consider this: would Michelle Obama have any coverage in the press if she weren't Barack's wife? No, but that doesn't mean she's not notable. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Obama is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. she sits on major committees etc. All First Ladies have articles, not all spouses of Australian premiers. Helena Carr has an unremarkable business career, that only gets media attention because she is the wife of Bob Carr. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew as soon as I mentioned her that I would get WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thrown at me. I find that to be one of the most overused essays at AfD. The intention of it is to avoid 'apples and oranges' comparisons, e.g. "We have an article on Pikachu and this article is far more important, so it can't be deleted". There is nothing wrong with using other articles as an example when they are similar subjects (e.g. wives of notable politicians). Anyway, my point about Obama was mainly tangential. My main argument remains that Carr meets GNG and NOTINHERITED does not negate notability. Jenks24 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
my point is the media takes interest in her because she is Bob Carr's wife. the coverage WWWGB provides all coincides with the time when Carr was Premier. I've looked at her business career, it's unremarkable compared to what we would expect business people to have in WP. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people are notable only because they are someone's spouse, so I don't see that as a good enough reason to delete. My interpretation of NOTINHERITED is not "you can't be notable for being related to someone famous", but rather "just being related to someone famous does not make you automatically notable", i.e. it's not enough to just say "she's Bob Carr's wife", significant coverage must be demonstrated (which I believe is the case here). Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 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.