Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlow Winter Kate Madden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete and then redirect. kingboyk (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Harlow Winter Kate Madden
She's only notable because of her mother (and possibly father). HurricaneJeanne (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED. Pburka (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom.TheRingess (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete 3 sentences long: A single sentence (the first one) is useful information that can simply be placed in any article where she is mentioned. That she was born (2nd sentence) is not notable (I'm pretty sure we all are). The marital status of her parents (3rd sentence) is applicable to her parents, not her. Fails WP:NOTE — BQZip01 — talk 06:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Her parents may be (somewhat) notable but being the child of notable people does not make her notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.254.214 (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and then redirect to her mother, per the precedents established by various other AfD discussions about the infant children of celebrities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete/redirect She does not currently meet the notability guidelines for biographies, and we do not do speculation here VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone else and because notability is not inherited. As BQZip puts it, being born does not make one notable. And I'm seeing signs of a WP:SNOW... 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if some reliable source provided analysis of the name (as this article does, failing WP:OR), that's still only notable as a choice of the parents - again, we all have a name. Obviously, if the child does become notable in her own right, I have no objections to an article - but this seems unlikely at this time. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The Wikipedia article that sets out guidelines for what is notable, and what isn't, states: "Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable," and "Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." Fox News, Sunday Mail, and MSNBC News wrote about it (as is listed in the references and/or external links), as well as entertainment based news centers such as MTV News, People Magazine, and Us Magazine. I'm sure there are even more articles out there, if you were to do a search past the first results page. In fact, for a kid that is only a few days old, she already has 32,500 hits on Google.com, which still has relevent results as far back as the 29th page of results, and even farther. kkarma (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- And WP:NOT#NEWS nither, and it fails WP:BIO as a celeb baby Delete Secret account 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:BIO page states, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," which Harlow Madden has, and the WP:BIO page also states that multiple independant secondary sources do prove notablity. So, I still say Keep. kkarma (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- For someone who knows how to quote guidelines and policies, you're not doing a very good job of avoiding original research in the article. Corvus cornixtalk 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Original Research is to present new knowledge. I doubt that every one of those news articles were the first ones to post the information. In fact, some weren't even written until the day after her birth, after which many other articles had already been written. There is no way to prove, or disprove, which articles would be original or secondary, besides their timestamps. kkarma (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Both Winter and Kate suggest the same type of meanings, since both essentially mean 'pure'. is OR. Corvus cornixtalk 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Name etymology has been around for centuries, written about in numerous books during those centuries, and is merely repeated on the internet. Maybe the very first books that mention name etymology would be original research, but not sources that repeat already known information. It isn't presenting anything new, which is what O.R. is. kkarma (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you an find a source discussing the etymology of this child's name, it's synthesis, a type of original research. Pburka (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, then the etymology section should be removed, then. Other than that, there is no need to delete anything. And if it's true about name etymology being O.R., then all the articles about names and their etymology (such as Kayla, Katherine) should all be deleted, too, along with the Wikiproject Anthroponymy, since it is for articles on the study of names.kkarma (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you an find a source discussing the etymology of this child's name, it's synthesis, a type of original research. Pburka (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Name etymology has been around for centuries, written about in numerous books during those centuries, and is merely repeated on the internet. Maybe the very first books that mention name etymology would be original research, but not sources that repeat already known information. It isn't presenting anything new, which is what O.R. is. kkarma (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Both Winter and Kate suggest the same type of meanings, since both essentially mean 'pure'. is OR. Corvus cornixtalk 02:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Original Research is to present new knowledge. I doubt that every one of those news articles were the first ones to post the information. In fact, some weren't even written until the day after her birth, after which many other articles had already been written. There is no way to prove, or disprove, which articles would be original or secondary, besides their timestamps. kkarma (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- For someone who knows how to quote guidelines and policies, you're not doing a very good job of avoiding original research in the article. Corvus cornixtalk 00:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The WP:BIO page states, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," which Harlow Madden has, and the WP:BIO page also states that multiple independant secondary sources do prove notablity. So, I still say Keep. kkarma (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- And WP:NOT#NEWS nither, and it fails WP:BIO as a celeb baby Delete Secret account 00:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Nicole Ritchie whose article already discusses the birth of her child. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Nicole Ritchie. Otherwise it will continue to be recreated. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nicole Richie (no "t"), please. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2008 (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.
