Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frances Bean Cobain (2nd nomination)
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 no consensus. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Frances Bean Cobain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Biography of a 15 year-old minor, whe has done nothing notable in her life other than been born to Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. That fact is recored in their biographies. The article is full of unencyclopedic personal facts - about, for instance, when an otherwise unnotable girl last saw her dad alive and what age she was. It's an amalgam from various sources - none of which are interested in the person as an individual. We have all relevant information recorded elsewhere. Docg 21:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inherited. Unless notability can be demonstrated independently of her heritage then I would say it is not an encyclopedic topic. 1 != 2 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; merge not necessary per nomination. Notability is not inheritable, and there isn't enough data to justify a split-out article. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Courtney Love (or possibly Kurt Cobain). The subject would need to have an independent significance in order to be notable for herself. The only claims of Frances Bean Cobain doing something on her own are the three press interviews; if the contents of those interviews were about something other than her parentage, then it might have been a different story, but they are not. If people are looking for information on Frances Bean Cobain, it's appropriate to include some in the biographies of her parents. Sam Blacketer 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason Steve Ballmer is notable is that he works for Microsoft. Interviews about him talk almost entirely about his work at Microsoft. But it would still be ridiculous to merge his entry into the Microsoft entry. By the same token, Frances Bean Cobain is famous primarily because she has famous parents. But she is, nevertheless, famous. Major media outlets have repeatedly done interviews of her and written profiles of her. Millions of people know who she is. Therefore she's notable. It's not our place to second-guess the reasons someone has become famous. Binarybits 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It doesn't matter whether her fame was inherited. She is a well-known figure who is a subject of interest to people, and that's enough. Owen 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this person well known? For what? 1 != 2 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter what for. True, she hasn't done anything obviously significant. But neither has, say, Princess Ariane of the Netherlands. Simply being known by a significant number of people is enough to make her culturally significant. Owen 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That other such articles exist is not a reason to keep this. Yes she is known, but so are the Queen's corgis. The point is that the undoubtable notable facts about her (who she is and her relationship to her parents) is included elsewhere. There is no specific and notable information about her that requires a seperate article.--Docg 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Queen's corgis aren't individually notable because they're almost never discussed by name. Contrast with Buddy (dog) and Socks (cat), which do, in fact have their own Wikipedia pages despite not having done anything "notable" other than being owned by a very famous family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binarybits (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm saying is that you don't have to do anything notable to be notable. Whether you like it or not, that's just how things are. Someone could easily argue that the Pepsi Girl has never accomplished anything, but that is simply our opinion. Like it or not, she is well known, and has a place here. Owen 03:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that some of this is redundant information in her mother's or father's article is not a sufficient reason to delete it either, and is not something that should factor into this discussion. I don't think there's a policy or guideline that states that simply because two topics have overlapping information they should be merged. I'm sure Kurt Cobain has a lot of redundant information with Nirvana, or The Blues Brothers with The Blues Brothers (movie), or incisor with tooth. The question isn't "What has she done that's notable?" but "Are people aware of her and are they taking notice?" Clearly they are. It doesn't matter if the articles focus on her relationship with her parents or they define her by her father's legacy; it's still her relationship and her definition they're talking about. Torc2 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That other such articles exist is not a reason to keep this. Yes she is known, but so are the Queen's corgis. The point is that the undoubtable notable facts about her (who she is and her relationship to her parents) is included elsewhere. There is no specific and notable information about her that requires a seperate article.--Docg 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, if not "what for", how about by who? I don't see any demonstration of notability. 1 != 2 06:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter what for. True, she hasn't done anything obviously significant. But neither has, say, Princess Ariane of the Netherlands. Simply being known by a significant number of people is enough to make her culturally significant. Owen 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this person well known? For what? 1 != 2 21:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and protect. Non-notable child of a celebrity. Until she does something of notability (not just something "interesting" to a few), she doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 22:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above, no independent notability. Hal peridol 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Kurt Cobain; we've had precedence for this kind of thing where the kid of a celebrity has done nothing; witness Suri Cruise and whatever Brangelina's kid's name is... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To not go with the flow of this AfD, strong keep. Her magazine interviews guarantee sourcable material along with the other material in existence about her to allow at least a Start-class article, and as Owen points out she is notable enough to be of interest to a wide number of people. Frances Bean has much more notability than the children of most celebrities. Plus, it would be inappropriate to merge this to either Courtney Love or Kurt Cobain without undue weight on those articles. I am willing to defend that this article be kept and would like to engage in proper discussion about it with the delete voters. Take John Smeaton (baggage handler), Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) and Chantelle Houghton - these people are kind of just famous for being famous, but I would not support that any of these articles be deleted because there is enough reliable source material on each to write an article well beyond stub status, like there is here. -h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chantelle is not famous for being famous. She's famous because she won a reality television show, married a pop star, authored a book, presented a television show, wrote a few magazine columns and divorced a pop star. Smeaton is famous because he helped prevent an act of terrorism, won an award and write a newspaper column. Crocker is famous for expressing public opinion and being interviewed numerous times on television. The subject of this article is currently assumed to be notable because she was born. You've got apples. And you've got oranges. I get your point, but it's not about where you start, it's about where you finish. Whilst we have an article on Smeaton, where's the articles on all the other have a go heroes? Whilst we have Crocker, where are the articles on all the other You Tube stars? Whilst we have Chantelle, where are the articles on all the other television show one off wonders? Notability isn't what you do, it's what the world does with you. Britney was just another child tv star until... Madonna was just another wannabe pop star until... Ian Wright was just another plasterer until... A better comparison is with Peaches Geldof. Someone who is more than just the child of a celebrity union. Hiding T 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely agree that Peaches Geldof is a better comparison than any of the others here, although she's that critically significant three years older than Frances Bean in which she's had time to do notable stuff.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By that rationale, we shouldn't have an article on Frances Bean until she's done notable stuff. Which is my point. Hiding T 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I definitely agree that Peaches Geldof is a better comparison than any of the others here, although she's that critically significant three years older than Frances Bean in which she's had time to do notable stuff.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chantelle is not famous for being famous. She's famous because she won a reality television show, married a pop star, authored a book, presented a television show, wrote a few magazine columns and divorced a pop star. Smeaton is famous because he helped prevent an act of terrorism, won an award and write a newspaper column. Crocker is famous for expressing public opinion and being interviewed numerous times on television. The subject of this article is currently assumed to be notable because she was born. You've got apples. And you've got oranges. I get your point, but it's not about where you start, it's about where you finish. Whilst we have an article on Smeaton, where's the articles on all the other have a go heroes? Whilst we have Crocker, where are the articles on all the other You Tube stars? Whilst we have Chantelle, where are the articles on all the other television show one off wonders? Notability isn't what you do, it's what the world does with you. Britney was just another child tv star until... Madonna was just another wannabe pop star until... Ian Wright was just another plasterer until... A better comparison is with Peaches Geldof. Someone who is more than just the child of a celebrity union. Hiding T 16:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't work out where to redirect. My own preference would be a protected dab stating Frances Bean Cobain is the child of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love. Although a redirect to either parent with a hatnote, "Frances Bean Cobain, the child of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love redirects here. Certainly no article though, per Sam Blacketer. Hiding T 16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - The first AfD had it right, and there is no reason to overturn that. Enough people thought she was notable then, and per WP:N#TEMP notability is permanent. Also, don't overanalyze and overuse WP:NOTINHERITED - that's just one section in an essay and simply states that notability is not automatically inherited; it's a warning against an argument for keeping, not an argument to be used for deletion. The fact FBC's name is well-known and can be used, for example, by The Onion without fear of people wondering who they're talking about, or that she's had a photoshoot in Elle magazine that was discussed elsewhere is sufficient evidence of notability. Let's not let Kurt's and Courtney's extreme notability overshadow Frances's minor-but-still-sufficient notability.Torc2 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I totally agree, and think that the deletionists need to chill out a bit. There are enough reliable sources to write an article, so I really don't see what the point of deleting this would be. Everyone should also remember that since WP:ATA is an essay and not a guideline, we are under no obligation to follow what it says at all.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge With her father's article. Jmlk17 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Google shows 1200 stories about her, including multiple interviews and profiles in major publications. The fact that she hasn't "accomplished anything" is irrelevant: she's been the subject of sustained public interest and media coverage for over a decade now. She's indisputably notable as that term is defined in Wikipedia guidelines. Binarybits 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I would agree with a merge to the article of a parent if only one were notable, since both are notable, there is no logical merge target. In divorce court custody of the children must be decided, but in an encyclopedia, there is no need to try to split the baby. Also since there are several media interviews of the subject, we have multiple secondary sources, which meets WP:BIO. Dhaluza (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
