Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Beckham (second nomination)

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 David Beckham, there is nothing seriously problematic with the article that it needs to be deleted before the redirect. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brooklyn Beckham

Delete Article was previously listed for deletion and result was merge and redirect. Then CalJW came along a few days later and reestablished the article claiming that it was blatant misconduct to close the discussion after a day of debate. Relisting here as subject is a child who does not meet WP:BIO. Simply being the child of a celebrity is not notable for inclusion, article should be redirected again to David Beckham. Previous AFD discussion below. Batman2005 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to Mom or Dad (I don't care which) per every single AfD we've had on anyone named Jolie-Pitt, or Federline-Spears, or whatever. Fan1967 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per G4. --DarkAudit 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and is not a speedy delete candidate in the meantime. At the moment, the child meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Note, its a recreation of a deleted page, therefore a speedy delete candidate. And could you elaborate as to how the child meets WP:BIO?Batman2005 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  The page was never deleted. The page was merged, however, and G4 doesn't cover reversed merges. Someone could have simply redone the merge instead of bringing it to AfD, but it can't really be merged now with the tag there. As for WP:BIO, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" and "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." I'll also note that, as usual with these articles, there's no real clear redirect point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  Good arguments, however you trip up on "non-trivial published works." The books are fiction that bare only his name. The child himself has done nothing notable in my opinion to warrant inclusion. Simply being born isn't involvement in a newsworthy event. The merging of a page and re-directing is a deletion of the pages initial article itself. Recreating a merged or re-directed page has in the past been speedy deleted. It's a grey area of the policy, but I've seen it happen. Let me also point to all the articles for the Holmes-Cruise baby, or the Jolie-Pitt baby, all of them....who were also born under media attention, are currently parts of their parents articles until the child does something themselves to warrant inclusion. Batman2005 01:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

  I only trip up on them because they haven't made the article. Among the available articles include the following citations: [1] [2] [3]. i'd find more, but i'm already bored with the celebrity nonsense, and none of these touch on his birth, either. I'm not sure they've ever been speedy deleted, as the redirects have to stay up for a reason, but there's no real speedy policy for it that I'm aware of. Regardless, I've disagreed with the consensus in the two AfDs you cite, and I'm disagreeing with people here, too. Par for the course for me. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha, par for the course is still good though! Batman2005 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the "non-trivial" references. I think a very good argument can be made that, aside from the actual report of the birth, nothing written about these kids can be described as "non-trivial". Four-year-old plays soccer with other kids, or has a birthday party, or gets a present? Trivial. The parents also have a lot of trivial coverage, but have non-trivial reports, too (plays in World Cup, records platinum-selling album). Fan1967 14:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, recreate and redirect to Papa. All the Pitt kids and the other Beckham kids get redirected. The only reason this wasn't is that the redirect decision was reversed out of process. MLA 10:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, recreate and redirect to David Beckham Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to one of his parents per nom and below. —Whouk (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect to Daddy as before Peterkingiron 23:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment'. People are simply jealous of his fame, and want him gone. He's a lot more famous than many people who have articles here. Skinnyweed 13:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's a pretty ridiculous comment, I am in no way jealous of this kid, I do however believe in the notability requirements for inclusion in wikipedia. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? If not then please refrain from taking up page space with those types of comments. Batman2005 15:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject is marginally noteable. Being the Becks eldest, he has the potential to become more noteable over time with media coverage. Similarly, one could imagine Prince William wouldn't have had a terribly noteable article at seven either. It's also worthwhile to note that it isn't exactly fair to redirect to only one of his parents. Mystache 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete after merging any useful information into parents article. The fact that it was recreated should be enough to the that user blocked. FordTuffinIt 21:28, 2 July 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.