Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suri Cruise

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 of the debate was Redirect to Katie Holmes; someone else may merge any notable information into Katie's article. The reason that I chose redirect is that I think a good portion of the delete voters would have endorsed a redirect, and some of the keep voters offered it as an option as well. I chose Katie rather than Tom since Tom's article has very little information on Suri (or Katie, for that matter), while Katie's article has a lot about their relationship. I welcome any comments on this close on my talk page. Ral315 (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suri Cruise

Non-notable bio. We also have a strong precedent of deleting newborn celebrity children articles.--Fallout boy 04:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. Really, all the kid did was be born to a couple of movie stars. --Dynamite Eleven 05:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - With great speed and efficiency, please! What little info that is here could be put into either of the parents bios. For a previous similar situation see Apple Martin. Dismas|^(talk) 12:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - She has done nothing to make herself notable. Her parents articles can mention her but she doesn't need her own article for anything other than people to revel in their cult of the celebrity. Ben W Bell 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Interesting article and notable. As with Frances Cobain's regarding parental/guardian custody, news of Suri's birth seems to attract more interest, silent birth, Scientology... and stands out from other celebrity babies. —Chantessy 14:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Note - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.70.143.119 (talk • contribs). was me. —Chantessy 16:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Association to a notable person does not make one notable. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - IMHO, the incredible amount of media attention that has been devoted to this pregnancy made this kid notable before she was born. Currently, on Google News, there are over 900 articles about this kid's birth, including this one: [1] which mentions that a photograph of Suri would sell for up to $5 million to an entertainment magazine. Just by being born, she became notable. The Disco King 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/merge/redirect to her mother's article. — Dunc|☺ 19:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This poor child has done nothing but be born to gain notability. Let her be a child until the parents begin exploiting her.
• Keep Let's all admit we are interested in the offspring of celebrities. It is news if enough of the American public want to hear about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.23.100.96 (talk • contribs).

(Note: This is this user's only contrib) ---J.Smith 21:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge into Tom's article. That's where it belongs until this baby does anything of real note other then being born. ---J.Smith 21:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Tom's article. 69.138.229.246 22:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Contrary to the printed policy, Notability doesn't have anything to do with what the person did. We have a couple of precedents. Elizabeth Smart (Utah) was "notable" but she doesn't have her own article, that link redirects to Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. So while Suri Cruise isn't notable per se, her birth is. the aforementioned Apple Martin redirects to Gweneth Paltrow. Suri's birth is more notable than Apple's, partially because of the ties with Scientology and the fact that Tom Cruise is insane, insisted on a Silent birth, and he ate Suri's placenta. The reason that I don't vote is beacuse I have too strong feelings about Tom Cruise and I feel that my feelings bias my judgement. McKay 22:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm wrong but didn't Cruise later say that the placenta deal was a joke? Dismas|^(talk) 23:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Yep, from our own article here: "But when the interviewer said it would be a big meal, Cruise replied: "OK, maybe I won't." In a later interview with Diane Sawyer, Cruise joked about the comments and said he wasn't really going to eat it". Also, you mention that he's "insane". Though I have some unflattering thoughts about him, I don't know if insane is quite technically correct. Dismas|^(talk) 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ! This child may not even be Tom Cruise and katie Holmes biological child. There has been reports for years that he shoot blanks and this all tomkat sham is repulsive. It's a cover for the most well know and documanted closeted case of Hollywood history ! I will think much lower of wikipedia if you do not delete very soon that article about a poor child gay-boy Tom is using to promote his "virility". I really hope wikipedia is not gonna stand anything about that disgusting tomkat sham. It was probably a fake pregnancy anyway and they're adopting a scientology baby from a teenager locked in the basement of scientology center. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.227.91 (talk • contribs).
• Keep - Lots of news about Suri happening, notable enough. --User:Carie 23:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Suri Cruise is clearly a person of public interest. You can find dozens of articles about her birth on Google News. Given the very public rumors of Tom's sexuality, religion and sperm-count, and Katie's dramatic and near-inexplicable spiritual U-turn, Suri will be a notable figure in celebrity news for quite some time. --Goldsounds 10:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC+10)
  • Comment - Most of those things you just mentioned have nothing directly to do with Suri. A) Tom's sexuality - Tom, not Suri. B) ... religion - again a Tom thing. C) ... sperm-count - again a Tom thing. D) spiritual U-turn - already in the Katie article and related to her, not Suri. And finally, she'll be in the news for the next few months but will become just a footnote until she's done anything of any worth. Dismas|^(talk) 00:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep shes in the news. national attention... shes notable. shes part of two movie stars who are also notable, she may become a footnote in the next month, but someone out there might want to know that information and it will be on wikipedia. Barcode 01:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Miss Cruise is no longer "part of" either of her parents. NatusRoma | Talk 18:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- there are circumstances of interest surrounding her birth, yes. But absolutely none that anyone would look first at Suri Cruise for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- The very fact that she is all over the news, for whatever reason, despite the fact that she obviously has not "done" anything to merit it, makes her article notable. --DLand^TALK 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and then redirect to Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes. Babies are not inherently notable, unless they're royalty or something similar (despite pop culture's obsession with Tom and Katie, they are not royalty). Compare Sean Preston Federline, which redirects to Britney Spears. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - But which do we redirect to? Tom Cruise is more famous Ms. Holmes, so arguably he'd get the redirect. But this may be POV. So maybe it would be easier to give this baby a page of her own....but then again, maybe we shouldn't go with the "easy option". That's not a very Wikipedia philosophy. --Dangherous 10:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Further comment/suggestion - There's more than enough material out there, in print or otherwise, to write a fairly detailed article on the Pregnancy of Katie Holmes, dealing with all of the controversies (is it Tom's baby? Will it be a silent birth? Will Tom eat the placenta? Did Tom abandon Katie to go promote M:I 3? etc.,) and discuss Suri's birth as well. It was certainly a notable event, given the amount of coverage that was given to it. What do y'all think of that idea? The Disco King 14:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I rather like this idea, actually. Instead of focusing on the child, which hasn't done anything note-worthy yet, create a page focusing more on the birth and the surrounding controversies. WHEN (or if?) the child does anything note worthy in times to come, then she can have her own page... But for now, the thing that's note worthy are the things happening as a result of the pregnancy, not that the child has directly influenced or done herself. kvidell 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- should only be a section in the Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes articles.
• Delete. Being born does not constitute sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. In fact, at the moment, this article is so devoid of positive assertion of notability that I would judge it worth speedy deletion. NatusRoma | Talk 18:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.You are so extremist, the article just mentions her, it's just a stub Gaudio 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because there are millions of babies born, but the only baby which is written about up and down in every newspaper is the baby with the "original" name Suri. You can travel through continents and people will know who this baby is, because of gossip magazines, and news articles, it is a famous baby. Not the same as other celebrity babies (exept maybe Apple, Gwyneth Paltrow's baby), which most people have never heard the name of. Bib 21:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's on the news enough to merit an article here. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 23:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article is of adequate length. If not now, when? GilliamJF 10:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable Jonathan235 17:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn bio. Merge into Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 23:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I think it's knowledge worth noting, and the fact that it's even up for deletion makes me think that there's a scientologist conspiracy in the works. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.254.5.242 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete, Suri is not a royal baby. Crumbsucker 01:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, definitely receiving a lot of news coverage. Surely any person who is in the newsworthy should receive an entry of their own regardless of age or position. I do not regularly follow any celebrities, but I have found myself at this page out of curiosity. It should absolutely stay. Linking to this page from Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes would surely be better than copying the information twice to both of their pages. hobmcd 02.32, 23 April 2006 (GMT)
• Keep. Suri is notable, due to the intense media interest about her parents and her birth, and then the controversy about her name. A baby can have notoriety; a close analogy is Desi Arnaz, Jr., though one can also think of Jessica McClure. -Scottwiki 04:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Suri's fame is linked exclusively to that of her parents. If she wasn't the progeny of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, we wouldn't know anything about her. However, as her existence has had some importance to the media spectacle surrounding Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, it does not strike me as thoroughly correct to completely erase her from Wikipedia. 04:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough is known to keep. --ConradKilroy 19:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Suri Cruise is not inherently interesting enough to warrant her own article. Arkyan 05:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable based on coverage (we have articles on specific incidents for celebrities mind you). See also Francis Bean Cobain. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The very fact that she is the daughter of celebs and there has been tremendous media coverage surrounding the kid makes it notable. After all who are we to deny anyone notability if MSM and the public bestows it on him/her. gunslotsofguns 07:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; she's going to have enough worries without having an article about her in Wikipedia. The real question is: will she still be notable in five years, apart from being the daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes? No. Failing delete, merge anything interesting into the articles on her parents, and redirect to one of her parents. Probably her mother. Alphax ^τεχ 10:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; the poor girl is going to be poked and prodded by the media in every way possible as is. She's not personally notable, so let's not make Wikipedia a vehicle for her further harassment. I would be fine with a redirect to Tom's article. --MikeJ9919 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, just nn baby of an celebrety Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete okay so she's not notable for what hse did but putting someone on WP just because of the hype her parents got for the upcoming birth is stupid. I think that Suri's page should be incorporated into both Tom and Katie's pages because they are her parents. But she does not need her own page. User:MgHoneyBee Apr.23,2006.
• Delete The kid was just born.That is not notable. This should be merged with her parents articles. This is an article just of media hype.--Happycat93 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Happycat93
• Strong Keep—Why should infant royalty keep pages but not infants that are inarguably much more famous and newsworthy? The first photgraph to be sold for publishing of this child is rumored to be worth US$5 million—that’s not worthy? It sounds like some people are clouding their judgment with their strong dislike of the child’s parent(s).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.129.16 (talk • contribs).
• Keep and add pictures... in a few years this child is going to be so famous.. honestly, might as well get a head start on it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.58.241.79 (talk • contribs).
• Delete and merge Royal children get so much attention because they could one day be king or queen. Suri is only famous because of all the chaos that surrounded her birth. I don't think many people are trying to delete this page because of the dislike of her parents. And the reason that the first picture of Suri will fetch $5 million is because the US is a celebrity hungry society. Most people in other countries could care less about her birth or her parents. I say to delete her page but merge the information with her parents pages. User:MgHoneyBee Apr.24,2006.
  • Note - This is the second vote by this user. Dismas|^(talk) 09:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles like this make a mockery of Wikipedia's bid to become a respected encyclopedia. Yeu Ninje 09:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete I didn't get a page here, did I?

• Delete Being born does not make one notable. If/when she does something notable that's not necessarily attached to one of her notable parents, then she can have her own page. -- tylerwillis | talk to me 13:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, obviously incredibly notable, easily meets WP:BIO guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, very notable, there is mass-media speculation. Meets WP:BIO criteria. --Andy123(talk) 14:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, not notable at all. Just because the tabloids think it's great the "crazy scientologist actor" is having a kid, doesn't mean she's done anything note worthy yet. Let's wait a few years until she's in a movie at least, please? kvidell 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Are people who are mentioned, featured, and discussed in multiple news stories, first about being born and then the snafu surrounding how your parents botched your name, not notable now? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 14:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I'm sorry I don't believe that tabloid fodder is worthy of this encyclopedia. She's done nothing special. If it helps prove my point, I'll take down my own user page. kvidell 14:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
      • CNN is a tabloid? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Every news agency has it's low moments. Just because they may not typically be a tabloid does not mean they don't publish tabloid-esque articles. Bad journalism is bad journalism no matter who publishes it. A bigger name and bank-roll doesn't make it any less useless or more "ground breaking." (And I'm of the opinion that this hardly is). kvidell 15:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the information into Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, and perhaps Sarah/Suri. She won't have done anything remotely worthy of an article for a few years, and in a month, I predict no one will be talking about her. —Seqsea (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, very notable. This child has been major celebrity news since Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes made the pregnancy public back in October. I don't think this article should be consolidated into either Tom's or Katie's article. She's a seperate entity from those two actors. She deserves her own page simply because of her popularity that she's procured for herself the past 7 months. I feel that if she hasn't accumulated anymore news for herself in the next 9 months, then consolidation can be considered. She's a week old. You can't seriously expect someone of her age to create the grandiose of news that you're expecting for a "notable" article. I say we wait 9 months and see if this article has any further contributions. If it doesn't, then, and only then, should merging be made an option. I personally think that people who are anti-Scientology are picking her apart and I don't think that her religious affiliation should play any part in the decision to retain or remove this article. It's irrelevant.chemical 20:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the information into Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. Being born does not make one notable. nilicule 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons listed by Chemical. 68.231.159.127 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Federline and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scout Willis. The child of a celebrity does not make one notable outright. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Poor consensus on some children doesn't mean we need to make a poor decision on this one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge You keep saying that all the publicity that she got before she was born makes her worthy of a page of her own, but all pregnant celebrities get tons of press when they're pregnant. It's the same thing for every pregnancy. Tons of press and tons of money being thrown at celebrity moms for the first picture. She shouldm't have her own page because she's only in the media becuase of her parents, her unusual name, and the fact that the US has become more concerned about what happenes in a celebrity's life than what happens in their own country. These are weak supports. Please come up with different supports. You just keep saying the same things over and over. How about a new opinion for a change. User:MgHoneyBee Apr.24,2006.
  • Note - This is now the third vote from the same user. Dismas|^(talk) 01:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I just came across this article trying to verify the story behind the meaning of her name, so regardless of whether it's notable, it was at least useful to one person. 216.15.37.6
• Keep, having this article redirect is unnecessary and could be a cause of confliction. Do we redirect it to Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes? Also, we'd have to copy Suri's information to both pages on Cruise and Holmes. Completely irrational to delete this page, it's useful information and obviously, given all these votes, alot of people frequent the article142.176.57.86 03:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Suri Cruise, in her short existence, has already generated more press coverage and Google-ability than many of the living persons currently featured with articles on Wikipedia. She meets every standard of notability for Wikipedia. wikipediatrix 16:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment–exactly. The only motivation anyone has for deleting this article is that Suri is an infant, not even 1 month old. Simply put, that's discrimination. It's almost the same as saying "We can't put Martin Luther King, Jr. on Wikipedia because he's black. Suri is just as notable, if not more notable than the average Wikipedia article.. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 18:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it's not really almost the same. Being less than a month old severely limits one's ability to do things and be notable; being black does not. —Seqsea (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Like it or not, people want information about Suri Cruise, and will continue to want information about her and her fate as years go by.Polylerus
• Well, anyone who knows me can guess how I'll vote. Are ya ready?!.... Keep

Ahem. I'm not going to comment on the politics of this article and just say that if you delete "Suri Cruise" now, she'll eventually become nothing but a redirect. Then, when Suri has "done something" the new problem will be how to create a new article for her. Besides, how many people can be listed under "April 15th births"? Heh. Oh and Dismas, repeat voting is really lame. I think you were cool. - Ace Class Shadow 00:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Um, it's not discrimination against Suri but if she is going to get a WP page then all celebrity babies should get pages regardless of the amount of publicity. As far as the the black comment made earlier, that's racism which is a form of discrimination but completely different. There is not discrimination here. Just think about why she has a page and then look at the pages of people who have actually done something in their lives and gotten recognized for their contributions to society and then look at Suri's page. The only reason she has a page is because of her parent's strange behavior and comments. And the fact that people don't know where her name comes from does not count as a contribution to society. i think that we as Americans need to focus on more important things than celebrity babies. And what's wrong with Suri just being a redirect? User:MgTurtle Apr.25,2006.

Comment—There will be the argument as to whether Suri Cruise should redirect to Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes, as well as the material on the currently existing page will have to be copy/pasted to both Cruise and Holmes' articles, which would mean there'd be more info. about Suri on Wikipedia than there is now. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 21:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Ace Class Shadow has already voted and the following is just censored commentary: "what's wrong with Suri just being a redirect?"! In the words of Optimus Prime: "what did just tell you?" Honestly! In the words of Batman: "What, are you dense? Are you ******** or something?" Once you make a name into a redirect, that's it. It'll be "Mission Impossible" to make a Suri Cruise page later on. You want that? Huh, do ya, ****? Ace Class Shadow 03:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You can edit redirect pages, you know. If it really becomes necessary to make an article about Suri Cruise, you edit the redirect into an actual article. There was no need for this little display. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - She has attracted A LOT of attention from the media, she even did so when she wasn't yet born. People (like me) will want to see this article to find out about the child, plus the article is adequate length and gives decent information Trampikey 12:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. PedanticallySpeaking 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable not for Suri as a person per se, but because of the bizarre and [in]famous circumstances of her birth. Matt Gies 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If that fails, merge. We do no create articles for every infant of some celebrity. Publicity about birth is only because of the parents, and it belongs in the parents' articles. Jonathunder 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to either Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes. Suri has not attracted any attention, only her parents. I mean seriously: a baby born to devout scientologists who do "crazy" things like purchasing a sonogram, not speaking during the birth, and discuss eating the placenta. Sorry, Suri has nothing to do with the media: just her parents. The media doesn't give a hoot about Suri, only the fact that she's the daughter of Tom & Katie. Maybe if she was born as the princess of X or has something notable independent of her parents then I'd change my vote, but that's not the case. Cburnett 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and merge. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect/merge into either Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes, as subject is non-notable in her own right. Railwayman 17:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.131.10.70 (talk • contribs).

[edit] What makes Suri notable?

As many people have pointed out, Suri is only notable for being born to two famous parents. In some people's opinion, that's enough to warrant an article, especially considering the considerable amount of media attention which has been devoted to her since her birth. For others, Suri is no different than any other celebrity baby. My thoughts (as briefly outlined above) are as follows: Suri is not notable for anything that she did, and so does not deserve her own article. HOWEVER: Suri is still notable as one of the most famous celebrity babies in recent years. All through Katie Holmes' pregnancy, celebrity magazines across the country were FILLED with articles, photos, speculation, etc., relating to this pregnancy - Tom's behaviour, the Scientology aspect, rumours about the true parentage of the baby, etc. What's notable here isn't the baby; what's notable is the PREGNANCY. So I think that an article should be created on the Pregnancy of Katie Holmes, spinning off information from Suri Cruise, Katie Holmes, and Tom Cruise, and incorporating all of this wild speculation, discussion, and intense interest relating to this pregnancy. I think that according to this site's guidelines, the pregnancy qualifies as a significant event, and perhaps this model could be applied to other notable celebrity pregnancies (such as that of Angelina Jolie). What does everybody else think of this? The Disco King 20:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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.