Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noelle Bush (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 was delete and redirect to Jeb Bush, the latter having been done already by Citicat (talk · contribs). I see no point in deleting the history at this stage unless someone tries to restore the article. Sandstein 07:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noelle Bush

Noelle Bush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete and redirect to Bush family per WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS which states: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news.[5] Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article." -Strothra (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jeb Bush. Unless she's done something notable since 2002, this is old news. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Her criminal record does not make her notable, and her name alone isn't sufficient for notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The news coverage is not enough to establish her as a notable person sufficient to overcome the BLP concerns. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We have deleted a whole bunch of articles on people whose only claim to notability was to have been part of the Bush family, and this one fits the bill as well as the others. So she's the President's niece. Would Mrs. Bush have been notable had she been a regular Joe with the same kind of legal trouble? --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to her father. JJL (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Jeb_Bush#Noelle_Lucila_Bush. The majority of this material is already there, and that's where it belongs.--TexasDex ★ 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I would have redirected in this case, but the article already survived a previous AfD. Even though it was no consensus, I believe it would have been a bit too WP:BOLD. --Strothra (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to the Jeb article. Being the daughter of a Governor or the niece of a President is not an automatic entitlement to a Wikipedia article under any part of WP:BIO. Having a drug problem likewise does not satisfy WP:BIO. The conjunction of being related to a notable person and having a drug problem does not convey inherent notability. The news coverage was transient and per WP:NOT#NEWS this article need not remain in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 04:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a member of one of the two or three most powerful/notable political families in America and for making national news. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that family lineage is not a valid argument for inclusion per WP:NOTINHERITED. --Strothra (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep ,just as with George P. Bush, their status are magnified because of the family lineage. Most objections would apply equally to George P. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that family lineage (WP:NOTINHERITED) and WP:WAX are not valid arguments for keeping an article. GPB is independently notable from his family and was kept for that reason in the 2006 AfD. If any comparison is to be made it is with the Pierce Bush AfD. That article was deleted. --Strothra (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The above assertion as to what constitutes valid argument is only an assertion and seems to be based upon a self described "essay" which clearly describes itself as"..not a policy or guideline..", so maybe the nominator subscribes to that essay's pov but I consider that essay to be Instruction creep and of no usefulness. I'd also argue that GPB is not independently notable from his family based upon his article's description of his less than notable activities. Family lineage is,obviously,a valid consideration for keeping an article. Also, Pierce Bush is not close to Noelle in terms of advanced search hits; ratio 20,000 for Noelle to 2,000 for Pierce. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Essays are still based in policy, in this case this is particularly true in terms of WP:BIO, WP:NN, and WP:NOT. This article also stands to easily violate WP:BLP on the only issue in which NB can claim independent notability. --Strothra (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly, stand by my reference to Instruction creep and I also endorse theseBD2412 comments which were made during the previous AfD attempt. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that instructions are different from policy. In particular, policies like WP:BLP are put into place not to guide content, but to protect Wikipedia from legal liabilities which is why BLP must be strictly adhered to.--Strothra (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the case has been made that WP:BLP is offended with this article nor that Wikipedia needs to be protected from anything within this article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's actually why I brought up WP:NOT#NEWS in the nom. That policy demonstrates the connection between WP:NOT and WP:BLP specifically in terms that relate to this article. --Strothra (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a better point but I still think the reasons for keeping the article as outlined in the original AfD are more weighty than the reasons here for deleting it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough :). --Strothra (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jeb Bush. The slight amount of notability is strictly inherited. Tim Ross·^talk 00:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Jeb Bush. I agree that she hasn't done anything sufficiently notable to justify having an article: children of famous people are not automatically notable themselves (unless they're going to inherit a throne or something), and the sole news story about her cited on this page seems absurdly minor. Following the guidelines of WP:BLP, I think we should avoid harm and delete this article. Terraxos (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - as an aside, it's worth mentioning that this article actually does, strictly speaking, pass our notability requirements. It has a sufficient amount of coverage from multiple reliable sources, and if it wasn't about a person, might well survive AfD. But articles about living people should always be treated differently when it comes to notability, and should be considered in a broader sense that weighs it against respecting their privacy; in other words, this article is the perfect demonstration of why WP:BLP exists. Terraxos (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as an "answer" to royalty in the US. Utterly notable. Greswik 18:55, 30 November 2007 (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.