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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna van Beethoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

I deprodded both and brought them here (early in the process) because while notability isn't inherited, I imagine some people might object to these being deleted. There are sources but it's a question of the historical context which I'm not well qualified to answer in this case.

I also deprodded/nominated Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven

Please comment separately for each individual Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual's only apparent notability is relationship to Ludwig van Beethoven; this is insufficient per WP:NOTINHERITED, and most of what is notable about her can be covered (and probably very nearly is) in his article. While she may also be notable for being involved in a difficult custody dispute, it's not clear to me that's sufficient either. Magic♪piano 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No personal notability established. Also, her husband appears to be his own father...! --Jubilee♫clipman 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note DGG and I have corrected the links: Karl van Beethoven is in fact a redirect to Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven, hence he appeared to father himself... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a rousing chorus of I'm My Own Grandpa. Nyttend (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Magicpiano. --Kleinzach 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak deleteKeep She was a major player in the notable lawsuit with LvB but that notability is borderline and the information could be mentioned within his article as well. During my search for sources I did, however, find enough information to assert notability on Kasper, the son of Kaspar Anton Karl and Johanna, so that might be the first place to head if anybody want to build up articles on the Beethoven family. ThemFromSpace 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might use Johann van Beethoven as a starting point to hang your finds on. If it gets too big or unwieldy, the stuff on his descendents can always be split out. Magic♪piano 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching to keep. There's enough cited info here for it to be a deficit if we lost it. Still open to the idea of a central article for the Beethoven family. ThemFromSpace 04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. As stated above notability is not inherited. Additionally the court case has weak reasons for it to stay up. Cablespy (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• <a>Delete: Notability isn't inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could we perhaps create an article like Family of Ludwig van Beethoven? Even if his family members didn't do much of significance, I'm sure many people would like to learn something about them, and I'm sure at least a decent amount of information is available on them. I've always felt that NOTINHERITED should be relaxed when dealing with the close relations of top-tier historical figures. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That might work better actually, but we might need to rearrange the order of the title to help searches: Ludwig van Beethoven's Family --Jubilee♫clipman 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for Johanna. See my note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven. (the argument is that there is a significant, tho probably incorrect, theory that she was his lover). Yes,we could create a section and do it there, and this is what I would recommend for a merely notable composer or other artist. But for the few who are the very most famous ones in all of history, a more expansive treatment is indicated. Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency to treat all notable subject as if they had the same importance, and it's time we overcame that. The depth of coverage should be proportional to the importance. (provided, of course we have source; for LvB and his family and associates, we do.) DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for Johanna. Sooner or later we will include more detail in our treatment of Beethoven biography. For better or worse, his custody struggle with Johanna over nephew Karl is very informative about Beethoven as a person and should be treated in detail. There isn't enough room in the main Beethoven article, and Johanna's article is a sensible place to put it. Please note that our coverage of Haydn and Mozart is likewise distributed to some extent into the articles about the people who were important in their lives. Opus33 (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do a custody battle and a (probably spurious) affair establish personal Notability for Johanna? And why do these not fit into Ludwig van Beethoven? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heavens' sake. You didn't even read what I wrote. Could you please just go away and leave our Beethoven coverage alone? Opus33 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would your concern not be addressed by the proposed "Family of" article? Magic♪piano 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Magicpiano, The problem is that each member of Beethoven's family related to him in a different way; it's not a natural grouping of topics. If we kept the article separate, then a nav box at the bottom of each individual article would suffice to permit readers to find all of our coverage. Opus33 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that: articles are only acceptable for people who have personal notability. That needs to be established first. If that can be done then (and only then) the articles can stay. But even then, there is an an article which links all the notable members of Mozart's family: Mozart family. Could that not be used as the basis for any Beethoven family article? --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opus33: You wrote (my emphasis): "...his custody struggle with Johanna over nephew Karl is very informative about Beethoven as a person and should be treated in detail". Thus you actually prove that this is to do with LvB specifially and should be in his article. It does not prove personal notability for Johanna herself. The other half of my comment was directed at DGG who said "...the argument is that there is a significant, tho probably incorrect, theory that she was his lover..." That too belongs in LvB's article. What do you mean when you say "There isn't enough room in the main Beethoven article..."? Johanna's article is only two lines long and fails to mention even these facts. OTOH, the LvB article goes into considerable detail already: Ludwig_van_Beethoven#Custody_struggle_and_illness. Seems to fit OK as far as I can see... Also, the various members of Mozart's family that have separate articles have had personal notatability established, at least by the inclusion of an important portrait (his sons). I haven't checked Haydn yet, but I strongly suspect the same is true. BTW, I am an editor involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers: you are only involved in the former, so how is this "...[y]our Beethoven coverage..." alone? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" I meant "the community of Wikipedia editors". I remind you that we are trying to produce a really complete and thorough encyclopedia. People like you, who evidently want to cut back coverage simply because they personally can't imagine a topic being of interest to other people, are a big threat to the quality of our encyclopedia. So please cut it out. Opus33 (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I am a member of "the community of Wikipedia editors"... I have stated my position exceptionally well, I feel: neither Johanna nor Kaspar have had their personal notability established. If you are able to establish it, great: do so in the articles. I am only going by what is written in these two articles not what is written in LVB's. For Johanna the sum total is this: Johanna van Beethoven (1786–1869) was the daughter of Anton Van Reiss, a prosperous Viennese upholsterer. Her mother was the daughter of a wine merchant and local mayor. On 25 May 1806 she married Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven, younger brother of Ludwig van Beethoven. Their only child, Karl van Beethoven, was born September 4 of the same year. Worse still, neither of the two referenced websites seem to be particularly reliable or useful. If you know Johanna's biography well enough and have reliable texts to hand then please expand the article and add reliable sources to establish Johanna's personal notability. If there are none, she does not warrant a separate article. It's people like me (and hopefully you) who are interested in maintaining Wikipedia's standards of Verifiability, Notability, Reliability, Citation etc (no need to link those topics since you've been here from the start...) A really complete and thorough encyclopedia means nothing if it is poorly written and badly sourced, as you well know. I can't actually for the life of me figure out what I've said to elicit your recent comments. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the content of the article was slightly larger until December 9, when Cablespy removed the uncited (but probably fairly easily citable) paragraph about the custody dispute. Much (but not all) of the removed content is in the main LvB article. Magic♪piano 01:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True: I forgot to mention that here, but did so later (below). I think the best solution is to come back in a month. We may have viable article(s) then. My problem is the lack of verifability not the veracity of this article. Manifestly, notability is not presently established. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I'm the nom and I commented to this effect on the sister (no pun intended): I think the best compromise is to merge both articles to Family of Ludwig van Beethoven or something similar. All of the ancillary family members, whose sum is notable, but who alone might not be, can then be explained in a full context, instead of in isolation, which requires lots more effort, more vandalism patrolling, more confusing search results, etc., etc. There is a downside to too many articles, but in a case like this I think the information is important. I think a family article is the best of both worlds. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is the best solution. How about Beethoven family as per Mozart family? Much simpler than either of our suggestions (see above for my other one). --Jubilee♫clipman 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose closing this AfD and, if necessary, reopening in a month - The reason being that the article does not in its present state establish any personal notability for Johanna. (Review this edit.) I suggest we give editors time to expand the article to establish her notability and add reliable secondary sources to verify the information. If this cannot be done then renominate. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Opus33 (at least) is editing the article to try to bring it up to WP standards. Lockwood and New Grove are acceptable sources and the article is taking shape. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
I have relisted because the discussion shifted markedly from delete towards merger, with a number of the earlier ccommentors appearing to change positions. Please clarify your current positions. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article has been extensively revised and referenced to help establish her notability. Addendum: If it is felt that notability still has not been established then merge into Beethoven family --Jubilee♫clipman 23:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Beethoven family. Magic♪piano 00:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to delete or add to an article about Beethoven's family. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems good enough for me. If people still want to merge the info, they can take the discussion to a project page or an article talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just read the article, subject seems relatively notable. I imagine that readers of the the Beethoven article would appreciate a blue link for johanna so they could come to this article and find out more. I would encourage but not enforce a merge with other relevant articles. --Brunk500 (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability isn't diminished by having a famous relative, either. - Nunh-huh 09:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. DGG is right about increased depth of coverage for the most important figures in history. So we wouldn't have a separate article on a relative of, say, Pierre Monteux who was involved in a bitter suit with him. But as a person gets more important, it's right for our coverage to get deeper. Notability isn't inherited, no, but the brightest stars cast more light on those around them. In the grand scheme Johanna is not that important, but losing this, or shoving the information elsewhere, would make Wikipedia appreciably less encyclopedic. --Glenfarclas (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Note - As nom I agree with this. I want to be clear that my nom was mostly procedural. I do not want a non-admin closure, but would prefer an admin close, but think its notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per Jubilee♫, --Kleinzach 06:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Glenfarclas. Much improved article, clearly notable, does not need to be merged. Please keep. DBaK (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2009 (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.