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.

The result was keep. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Georg Mozart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not worthy of anything he may have done himself. His mention is only in passing as a grandfather of a famous musician. This man has a weaker claim to notability than Britney Spears's mother. I would urge deletion of this article post-haste lest Wikipedia be held to be a laughingstock. Uywwi (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Trying to force us into agreeing with your deletion recommendation "lest Wikipedia be held to be a laughingstock" is an totally inappropriate way to open an AfD. Please don't do it again. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to be a little more civil in your tone. Who are you to start bossing people around like some drill sergeant? Eh? Uywwi (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy, kids. Uywwi, for laughing stock, we have anime. Jethrobot, don't take the bait. ;) 207.157.121.52 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ordinary person, led ordinary life. Edison (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google Books does not suggest that he is independently notable--but leave the redirect. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only notability seems to be that he was related to a notable person. That does not seem to be grounds for an article. ItsZippy (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Hold on. I'm not sure that this is a good faith nomination. Please see the following thread at ANI.[1] Can we contact somebody who's knowlegable about classic music and would know whether this person is notable. There aren't going to be very many online sources for an article like this. The article is currently sourced to a book. Does anyone have access to the book to know whether there's substantial coverage about this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's normal for Mozart biographies to begin with his ancestry. This is true for the Solomon bio cited in this article, and also for the most prestigious Mozart biography, that of Hermann Abert (see Google Books, [2], page 1). People who are highly interested in Mozart are naturally also interested in his family background: for instance, how far back were there musicians in the family? [answer: just one generation]. Were there other relatives recognized for genius? [answer: not really, maybe Nannerl and Leopold] Since Mozart biographies cover this sort of thing, it's reasonable for WP to do so as well. Opus33 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment people who are "highly interested" in any celebrity might want to learn their family background, but creating articles for every ancestor of a famous person runs afoul of WP:NOTABILITY which says that notability is not inherited (nor does it flow to ancestors not otherwise notable). Edison (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you clicked on the link above labelled "books" and counted the number? That's some coverage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Opus33 and AQ4K. Almost certainly intended as disruption. There are nearly 300 GBooks hits on the name, indicating more than a reasonably moderate level of coverage for a historical figure. It looks like the scholarly/historical record sufficiently documents him in his own right, for whatever reasons, which makes him an appropriate subject for encyclopedic coverage. If there were a batch of stubbish articles, perhaps a family article might be appropriate, but I'm not seeing that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the above, as the subject's notability is established in literature as noted above. It would be silly to go any further up the family tree, though. Several Times (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course, as Opus explains. Bad faith nom by someone who has been trolling us since 2005. Tempted to speedy this or just close it. Antandrus (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be inappropriate to speedily close an AFD which has several good-faith delete !votes. There is absolutely no inherent notability just for being the quite ordinary grandfather of some famous person. WP:NOTABILITY notes that notability does not flow to someone just because they are related to a notable person. He is only mentioned in connection with his progeny, so a mention in the descendants' articles might be appropriate rather than a stand-alone article, as recommended by WP:N. Edison (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. In general I would agree with you, but this particular banned user's MO is to start AFDs on things that will cause lots of argumentation -- that's how he gets his jollies -- and any such page created is speedy-deletable under the "created in violation of a ban" criteria. Still I'm letting it go since the debate has been civil and reasonable and, if anything, this discussion is useful on the general issue of inherited notability. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is silly to assume that the other Delete !voters and I are somehow zombies, enchanted into involuntary and unreasoned agreement with some bad-guy nominator. I looked at the article, and concluded that he was about as notable as my own grandfathers. Nothing he ever did was notable. The only reason anyone looks him up today is because his testes on one occasion produced a spermatazoam which led to a son, whose own son in turn was Wolfgang Mozart. Good enough to mention him in articles about Leopold and Wolfgang. Not notable enough for his own article, per Wikipedia guidelines. Edison (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never assumed you were a "zombie". Never mind; forget I commented at all. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as explained above. The nominator, now blocked indefinitely, writes "His mention is only in passing …" which is not true; I wonder how the nominator failed to notice the substantial coverage BEFORE the nomination. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Michael Bednarek, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no time to look into this in detail, but would like to ask a question about the purported hundreds of books "covering" this person: I would expect every biography of Wolfgang Amadé or Leopold to mention Johann Georg. Is this the explanation of all those hits? Unless there is something that makes this person notable beyond being the (grand)father of two famous people, I don't see why this article should be kept. As an aside, I have read a great deal about Mozart and his life and don't remember ever having heard of Johann Georg (which probably means that if he was mentioned in the books that I read, he was probably just in-passing). Nannerl, Konstanze, and Franz Xaver obviously are notable people. I'm less convinced about Joseph and don't find the arguments presented above very convincing either. --Crusio (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though a merge to a combination article with his other ancestors would also be possible. If people are famous enough, their direct ancestors can be notable. Mozart is famous enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 July 2011

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.