Talk:Malia Obama

Reinstate redirect to Family of Barack Obama#Malia and Sasha Obama

Please see Talk:Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article for recent discussion about keeping this as redirect; also see Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Malia Obama for earlier review. Nothing new has been added to justify the creation of a separate article, and no indication of why Malia and not Sasha - these children are not independently notable and they are amply and more appropriately covered in the Family article at this time. Please discuss at the Family talk page so we can keep discussion in one place. ThanksTvoz/talk 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New situation

In May 2008, Malia was merely a daughter of a candidate. Now many sources have written articles about her as the main topic and only mention President Obama in passing (making him the non-notable person in such article). Furthermore, she is now the First Daughter, another sign of her increased notability.

One confounding factor is that President Obama does not want the press to become paparazzi. But we are only reporting reliable and upright sources (or we should).

The May 2008 delete discussion is old and no longer applies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. None of your arguments is compelling or convincing. Leave it as a redirect. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Republican. None of your arguments are compelling, convincing, or correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Subject is significant enough for her own article now.--Milowent (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the significance and notability other than in being Obama's daughter? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a trivial amount of information about her. The redirect to this article and the few paragraphs here about her covers just about everything notable that has been reported about her reliable sources. --guyzero | talk 05:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No arguments have been presented to justify separate article for Malia Obama - she and her sister are amply covered in the Family of Barack Obama and the redirect should stand. She was already the daughter of a President when this was last discussed. Tvoz/talk 05:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tvoz, when was this last discussed? I haven't pored through everything, but the only link I see at top of talk page is for a speedy delete in May 2008, before Obama was even elected?--Milowent (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk: Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article for recent consensus discussion (long after the election) to keep this as a redirect. There is no "new situation" - nothing has changed, nothing new has been raised. Tvoz/talk 07:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I'm hard pressed to say that shows consensus in any direction. DRV doesn't seem to be the only way to get this formally discussed, Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages states that a page may be recreated if notability status has changed, which it certainly has in this case since May 2008. DRV is another option but I'm not sure I want to spend all my time on this.--Milowent (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Need there be any? See, e.g., Jenna Bush, Barbara Pierce Bush, Chelsea Clinton, Amy Carter, as well as Maureen Reagan, Tricia Nixon Cox, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, Susan Ford, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Eleanor Wilson McAdoo, Margaret Woodrow Wilson, and Helen Taft Manning. The May 2008 deletion discussion is not really applicable now. Turning it into a redirect is just a stealth deletion. A new AfD nom seems appropriate procedure to re-evaluate if you don't agree that article should exist.--Milowent (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• You'll notice that every one of your "examples" has one major thing in common: they're all adults. Consensus is, and has been, that this is a redirect. Trying to restore the article against consensus, and established BLP concerns is disruptive, and you'll be blocked if you continue to do so. UA 05:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • They are only adults due to Father Time, UA; I doubt those articles would all exist unless they were presidential kids. I only restored the article one time, I wasn't trying to be disruptive and don't intend to bear a cross on this one.--Milowent (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That doesn't even make any sense. They're adults, the Obama daughters are not. Period. End of story. UA 05:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • My point is that the notability of many of these presidential children was established by being a presidential child, nothing else. So there is no meaningful distinction created just because, for example, chelsea clinton is now over 18. Apparently the president's dog is more notable than his children.--Milowent (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. If you insist on a formal process, WP:DRV is the way to go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Instructions

The top yellow box says "Please review the prior discussion if you are considering re-nomination"

So if you want to cause trouble and renominate, review the prior discussion first. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected ...

.... at the usual Wrong Version™, due to edit-warring. Guys, please resolve this on the talk page - Alison ^❤ 07:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• It was "resolved" a long time ago. The only edit warring happening is from those who don't acknowledge that consensus, and don't seem to understand that BLP concerns of a minor child + the fact that notability is not inherited means this should only be a redirect. Every other person (including my one revert) was simply reverting to the consensus that this is a redirect and nothing more. UA 13:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Where is this consensus? I am not seeing any clear consensus on the family page.--Milowent (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not seeing the consensus because you choose not to see it. You are editing in bad faith, to say the least. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Where am I editing in bad faith, RJ, to "say the least"!? What is "the worst"? May I be Satan as well? (Note to self: say 10 hail marys tonight). I reverted the article one time with a suggestion to discuss further on the talk page, that's all -- I wasn't fully versed on all this history at that point, and I was reverted -- that's fine, and I've since come to the talk page to discuss it because that's an appropriate thing to do. What I subsequently did was first look at the May 2008 AfD, which was a speedy delete, before Obama was even the party nominee for president. That is mostly useless for October 2009. Then I was directed to Talk:Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_Obama_article by tvoz as being the source of the consensus you are citing. So I went there, and this is what I saw:

• Gage - comment in July 2009 says he re-created article and it was "steadfastly reverted" due to May 2008 deletion.
• Tvoz - weighs in against separate article, in favor of coverage within family article.
• wehwalt - against separate article, in favor of coverage
• Durga Digo - against separate article, thought there is not enough out there for an article.
• Grundle2600 - jokes about obama's dog having its own article, I interpret this as neutral at worst.
• Norightturn - notes there are lots of news stories about the kids
• john k - strong comments and arguments made in favor of separate article
• Wikidemon - against separate article "for now" - "Likely, as they grow older each of them will eventually have their own article. I do not know when that will be though."
• Silence - against separate article, though fully expects they will exist sometime in next "4-8" years.
• Binary bits - in favor of separate article.
• UA (Unitanode) - against separate article - says they aren't even notable.
• PhGustaf - against separate article

So just counting !votes, that was 7 against a separate article (counting those who favor its "eventual" creaton), 3 in favor, and 2 votes which were either neutral or possibly in favor of a separate article. Now, I just !voted on that page to simply add my view, so that's now 4 strong !votes in favor there. I think we can also count "October 22 2009" in favor of a separate article, as he/she is the editor that stirred this all up in the last 24 hours. So, I find that I am not blind, and have a legitimate conclusion that I have trouble seeing a strong consensus here, though I will concede that more "merge" votes have been counted than "separate" votes at this point in time.

And going beyond counting votes to the strength of the arguments, there's no question that Malia has significant coverage to meet the notability standards. No one has disputed comments like Binarybit's observation: "There are dozens and dozens of articles focusing specifically on the president's children." John K noted a huge slew of presidential children (much larger than my list above) who have separate articles --- including every presidential child since FDR, even ones that died as infants (e.g., Patrick Bouvier Kennedy). And let's face it, the notability of many of these folks simply exists because they are a presidential kid, yet they have more coverage than 95% of all British footballers (with separate articles) will ever have.

So, in conclusion, in my opinion we're in a "no consensus" state as to whether Malia Obama should have a separate article.--Milowent (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In a "merge" situation, "no consensus" defaults to the status quo, which is "redirect". Only in cases involving a deletion, does "no consensus" default to "keep". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Can count myself and probably RJ, per his comments above, as !votes to maintain the redirect. I haven't seen any new discussion on why Malia needs her own article other than "other Presidential kids have them" which is not convincing. What content would be added to a Malia-only article that isn't already included on the Family article? --guyzero | talk 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you don't think I can convince RJ? hehe. I can't say what precise content would be added, but that there is reams of sourcing available. As every other presidential kid has their own article, the primary justification for Malia not to appears to be her age, which is not related to notability. The project won't be harmed either way.--Milowent (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Your continuation of the line of reasoning, "other president's kids have them" is without merit. And an abundance of sourcing doesn't get past WP:NOTINHERITED either. UA 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is good advice for everyone, because it is often cited incorrectly. As that policy states, "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." It is in that context that I noted the existence of the other articles over a long period of time.--Milowent (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're quoting it out of context, for your own ends. The general thrust is this segment: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist." Your argument is based almost entirely on the fact that other presidential children have articles, and that there's lots of sources. The first is covered by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The second is covered by NOTINHERITED, as there wouldn't be ANY sources about this little girl, were her father not president. UA 19:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I shared my insight and you disagree, but my quote is not out of context. Of course I cite it "for my own ends" because that's what we all cite policies for, to support points of view. The policy itself is not completely consistent, nor is the fact that Malia Obama doesn't have her own page. I am really not intending to push things here, I just noted that in my view I didn't see a consensus. The lack of divined consensus means we have the status quo; I don't intend to initiate a DRV.--Milowent (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think there is enough additional information to make Ms Obama notable enough for her own article, add it to the redirect section on her. when that section is large/notable enough to support an article....then lets have the conversation to see about breaking it out. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We should not be creating BLPs of marginally notable people, especially children. This really has nothing to do with sourcing. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Very much agreed with Unitanode and Tarc. This should absolutely stay a redirect, per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP. GlassCobra 06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Unitanode and Tarc and Glass Cobra. She is marginally notable but Wikipedia prohibits only non-notable people. Since she has many articles about her from reliable sources and since the deletion debate was well over a year ago when she was non-notable, she should have an article. She has a blue link from Mrs. Obama's article. SRMach5B (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Any notability that Malia and Sasha Obama currently have, stems from their relationship with Barack Obama. The existence of separate news articles about them is immaterial since those articles are still a result of that same relationship. New Wikipedia articles should result from genuinely independent notability, not simply that news coverage of the Obama family is voluminous enough to have forked into multiple news articles. Wikipedia is not a Google mirror and it is similarly not a mirror of the news media. Therefore, Malia and Sasha should stay redirected to this page.

Under the Obama article probation, admins monitoring this situation should consider sanctions against editors who tendentiously attempt to create separate articles, such as by wikilawyering over the contents of the notability guideline. The existence of separate wiki articles about now-deceased children of historical presidents is also undispository, because of the heightened scrutiny that we should give to BLP's, especially to BLP's about minors, and doubly especially to BLP's of minors who are (through no action of their own) part of a BATTLEGROUND topic, and triply especially when that topic is under content probation in Wikipedia. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep track, I noticed that another article for Malia was created and then deleted yesterday in just over an hour. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_25#Malia_Obama_.282009.29. --Milowent (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Try to use the "stems from their relationship with Barack" reasoning and you would have to get rid of lots of articles, even Mrs. Obama. She is just some former hospital administrator. The fact is that not very well known, but notable people, have passed AFD. BY applying a special standard to Malia, we are discriminating against her.

The big problem is that some think they are supporting Obama by supressing an article about Malia. She passes the criteria of notability (even acknowledged by opponents of the article). Let's just have it and not try to use wikilawyering to close AFD early and other lawyer tactics. SRMach5B (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither child has done a single thing to establish notability in their own right, that is the simple fact of where we're at right now. Being notable for no other reason than the fact that their father is famous is not criteria for a Wikipedia article. Your comparison to Michelle Obama is rather weak as being First Lady is sufficiently notable on its own. Tarc (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on Wikipedia's treatment of other presidential children (discussed some above), there is no question in my mind that Malia is by far notable enough to have an article, the only real debate in my opinion is over where her content is placed. This appears to be founded in some BLP protectionist type sentiments. Just looking the page view stats for the redirect[1], even the Malia Obama redirect gets 100s of hits a day (275 on Oct 22, the day before the recent discussions started), and more hits whenever it briefly exists as its own article.--Milowent (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Other presidential children" have articles largely because of what they did later on in life, whether it was Margaret Truman's singing career or Amy Carter's activism. I highly doubt either would have warranted a wikipedia article (if such were around at the time) when they were 11. Malia is not notable on her own for an article now, despite where your personal opinions or google hits erroneously may lead you. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Precedent with other minor children of celebrities has in the past resulted in their names being redirected to the appropriate part of the famous parent's article. I refer to Suri Cruise as an example. Or, perhaps, Al Gore III as a more relevant reference? Yes, Malia Obama is a daughter of a president; she has also done nothing outside of her father's sphere to establish her own notability. A redirect is entirely appropriate at this point. When she grows up and starts doing things independently of her family, then sure, an article would be fine. Right now, she's a little girl in a big position of power and her notability is tied inextricably to her father. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore III has had EIGHT nominations for deletion? LOL. (Is that a record?) (Plus it was recreated at least one other time a few months ago). Think of the man hours spent in pursuit of that!! But Suri Cruise is a good analogy to consider, though I'm inclined to think being the child of a U.S. president transcends even springing from the loins of Tom Cruise.--Milowent (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments again about this redirect

Despite the sense of the editors on this page and at Talk: Family of Barack Obama, once again this has been brought to yet another forum. Comments requested at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Malia Obama. Tvoz/talk 09:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm getting really tired of this forum shopping. I've commented there. UA 09:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Its not forum shopping, poor old SRMach5B was told that's where he/she should go.--Milowent (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

article

I am really surprised that there is not an article on Malia. She is frequently in the news. Her dog has an article. I can see that one stumbling block is that President Obama has said that he doesn't want the press to write about her but I don't think that is a prohibition that we have to follow. Of course, we can either follow it and give the man some respect or we can come up with some fake excuses to cover up the true reason (respect for the President).

I recommend eventually to have an article but that's up to someone else as I wouldn't know where to start to write one. Brenda of accounting (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This article sucks but just give it time

This article is really a stub but give it time. Please do not make excuses for deletion or redirect. Some mistakely think the President wants a news blackout on Malia so they think of excuse to support the President and not have this article. This is not the truth since the President does bring up Malia, like in the oil spill.

Bo, the dog, has an article that survived deletion so that shows that Malia qualifies for an article. Presidentmalia (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at old versions of the article for more sources, e.g., [2].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As you know, this has been discussed at length and consensus has been to leave this as a redirect which is more than enough. This child is not notable on her own and this is not appropriate for the encyclopedia at this time. Tvoz/talk 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, you and I are on the opposite sides of this issue. This "consensus" does not really exist, and the status quo is maintained only with a large amount of effort. I've chosen not to fight a wasteful battle over it. Some of my prior comments with my views are above on this talk page, see also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive73#Malia_Obama, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#Abuse_redirects_and_problems_with_gangs_of_editors, Talk:Family of Barack Obama/Archive 3. I also see a more recent discussion here: Talk:Family of Barack Obama (27 Aug - 2 Sept 2010).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I was and am well aware of your position on this, and am sure you are aware of mine. I don't know why you don't see the clear consensus against a separate article, and I haven't seen anything - especially this latest utterly unencyclopedic attempt at creating an article (did you actually read it?)- to convince me otherwise. But I don't see the need to argue this again either - the consensus of involved and uninvolved editors, across the several article talk pages and administrative pages where this has been repeatedly discussed, remains the same, in favor of the redirect at this time. Tvoz/talk 02:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Need for an article

There needs to be an article. Seems like there are lawyer-type excuses to try to justify not having it. Please have an article.

Thanks, Hilda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.74.3 (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Full Article

I agree with others that there should be a full article here. She was perhaps non-notable in early 2008 when her father was merely a presidential candidate. But since then she's been the daughter of a president for 3 years. Lots and lots of press coverage focusing entirely on her and her sister has accumulated in that time. The people insisting that "notability isn't inherited" seem to believe that anyone who's known primarily as the relative of a famous person is thereby precluded from notability. But this is nonsense, as demonstrated by the existence of a wikipedia page for the Obama dog.

What I suspect is really going on is people are squeamish about subjecting a minor to unwanted scrutiny. But this is silly, because Wikipedia is just a small fraction of the attention she gets from other outlets. Binarybits (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The existence of one ridiculous article (Bo (dog)) does not give a green light to crate other ridiculous articles. And yes, being a minor is part of the reason, as well as the "not inherited" bit. Coverage of either child at prsent is routine; what school they go to, what costumes they wore for Halloween, the presents bought for mommy and daddy for Christmas, and so on. All a byproduct of who their parents are rater than of the children themselves. The day that she does something that is actually notable is the day this page gets un-redirected. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability isn't a reward Wikipedia gives out to people for significant accomplishments. It's a rule designed to make sure there's enough material in reliable sources, and interest from potential editors, to produce a solid article. There's no question that bar has been met in this case. The bar on notability for routine events is for events. Malia's birthday party probably isn't notable, but the fact that the events in her life are routine doesn't have any bearing on whether she's notable.

Again, the standard is "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There have been hundreds of articles about her, so she obviously meets it. The fact that you don't think she "deserves" an article has nothing to do with it. Binarybits (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Add stuff to the family article if you think its warranted, there are too many editors who would rather the world end than Malia have a separate article. It will happen someday, perhaps sooner if a better case for notability was made via the existing content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe she'll kiss a boy tomorrow and TMZ will have a front-page headline screamer. Maybe the smoking gun will have a mugshot of her after classmates' accusations of baked-goods thievery surface. Or maybe she can just be a normal girl with a famous father who really doesn't need scrutiny from wiki-gnomes. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia's actual notability rule. If you think Wikipedia needs a special rule excluding the children of famous people from coverage, you can propose a new policy, but that's not a reason to reject an article here. Binarybits (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does have everything to do with the notability guidelines. Pay attention. Neither child has done a single thing independent of parent(s) that would justify a standalone article. Everything that has been written about them is in the narrow context of "this is what the kids of the president are upto today". Offspring of famous people need to do things that are actually, y'know, independent of their famous relatives. That's why Marcus Bachmann doesn't have an article. Neither does Al Gore III. Being talked about in the news for routine things just because you're related to someone well-known is not grounds for article inclusion. At best, it justifies a redirect and some brief information at the point of said redirect. Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I am paying attention. The rule is "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Explain to me how "doing a single thing independent of parents" is relevant to that standard. That's right, it's not. The children of famous parents can themselves become famous, and when they do they get significant press coverage and therefore become notable. See Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and Francis Bean Cobain. Binarybits (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, your own example proves my point. Albert Gore III doesn't have a Wikipedia page, but Karenna Gore Schiff has a Wikipedia page that focuses on her personal life, her work for the Gore 2000 campaign, and her book about her father's political campaign. Will you be AfDing that too? Binarybits (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the typical flaw seen in inexperienced editors' arguments; being reliably sourced is not the be all and end all of qualifications for getting a Wikipedia article. Things that are reliably sourced routinely get deleted per WP:BLP1E, per WP:NOTINHERITED (being the applicable one here), and several others. The Obama children are not notable independent of their famous parents. Period. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The insult isn't called for. Again, the rule is "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Do you deny that Malia meets this standard, or is your claim that WP:Notability should be changed? If you think she doesn't meet the standard, can you explain why? Notice that WP:NOTINHERITED isn't an exception to WP:Notability, it just says someone who doesn't otherwise meet WP:Notability can't qualify by virtue of famous parents. But you can't serious dispute that Malia has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Binarybits (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Being reliably sourced isn't the sole criteria for article creation, and yes, all coverage of these children stem from who their famous relations are. Neither has ever, at any time, done a single thing notable to justify a standalone article. I will repeat these facts as many times as you need. Feel free to head to WP:DRV if you still intent to persist in this. Since the last result of this page was a speedy delete, unilateral recreation cannot happen. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

What are the other criteria and where can I read about them? Binarybits (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is some insight into why we may not have reliable sources on the subject.

• "White House admits censoring news on the Obama family". Russia Today . 21 March, 2012,. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again

A few points are worth noting here. Firstly, the guidelines that Talc suggests demonstrate that we should not have an article here are weak. BLP1E doesn't apply here, because the Obamas aren't famous for one event - they are the subjects of continuing and sustained news coverage. And WP:NOTINHERITED is neither a policy nor a guideline - it's an essay. It has no weight. It should not be Wikipedia's job to decide whether press coverage and other coverage in reliable sources is only being given because of who a person's family is. Not having articles on celebrity babies is totally fine - the attention to them really is adjunct to the attention to their parents. But once you get past that, coverage is coverage, and there's tons and tons of press coverage of the Obama children. Secondly, the actual issue here is pretty clearly not this "notability is not inherited" business. Because we have numerous articles on presidential children who haven't really done anything "notable in their own right." Barbara Bush (daughter), Amy Carter, John Gardner Ford, Marvin Bush. Nobody seems to have a problem with these articles. Amy Carter is a good model here, because she was a child when her father was president. She's been in the news a bit since, but not really because what she was doing was of intrinsic interest. But she is obviously notable. She had tons of press coverage during her father's presidency. The difference here is not that Amy Carter is really more notable than the Obama girls. They are all basically well-known because they are daughters of the president. The key difference is that she is an adult, and the Obama girls are not.

But there's no policy saying that notable children should not have articles about them to protect their privacy. Perhaps there should be, I don't know. But there isn't, and as such, I don't see why it would be inappropriate to have articles on Malia and Sasha that contain well-sourced information about them from reliable sources, especially since that information is already on Wikipedia anyway. john k (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

@John K: - I think you make a very good point. I came here because I had been over at Ange Kagame, someone who is probably notable only for being the daughter of the Rwandan president. And I was wondering about nominating that for deletion. Having considered the matter though, and read your comment here, I think actually it's this that's incorrect. Malia and Sasha are very clearly notable in their own right, satisfying criterion 1 of WP:GNG. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit

Categorization Please add Category:1998 births, Category:Children of Presidents of the United States, Category:Obama family, Category:People from Chicago, and Category:Sidwell Friends School alumni. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please add Category:University of Chicago Laboratory Schools alumni. FallingGravity (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested edit

. Please add rcat tag {{R to section}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this may be a better idea:{{rcat shell|{{R from member}}|{{R to section}}}}. @SimonTrew: what do you reckon? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think that {{Rcat shell}} is just unnecessary overhead. However {{R from member}} is probably a good idea. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Please also add {{R to section}}, {{R from member}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} to Malia Obama (First Daughter). The talk page of that page has been edit-protected, which is perhaps a little heavy-handed. That R is currently at WP:RFD, but it can be rcatted without prejudice in the meantime: no harm comes of it if it's deleted or kept, and if it's retargeted then the person retargeting presumably will recategorise when doing so; but if it's left to the close of the discussion it's often forgotten. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Champion: sorry, (edit conflict) there. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Well I always use {{Rcat shell}} if and only if there is more than one redirect template, I only see the point for it produces less clutter IMO. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it produces more clutter, i.e. having to put the thing into the page source, for practically zero gain. It's not as if many of us actually categorise redirects anyway, so to add a burden, however small, is counterproductive. I just don't see the point of it, and don't use it: I think it has become "encouraged" or something nowadays, but then a bot can easily run through and "fix" all the redirects that don't have it. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Done with the rcat shell. There are other benefits as well, such as auto detection of the protection level — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

create

she's notable for being Barack Obama's daughter, one of the most famous men in the world, no reason why she shouldn't have her own article at this point. Kingofthedead (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested edit

Please add Category:Living people. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 03:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)