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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Edwards[edit]

Cate Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am renominanting Cate Edwards for deletion. I am nominating the article on the basis of WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. The opening sentence reads "Catharine Elizabeth "Cate" Edwards (born March 4, 1982) is the elder daughter of John Edwards, the 2004 nominee for Vice President of the United States from the Democratic Party, and Elizabeth Edwards." Relationships do not confer notability, as per WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. If you read the article, no single thing, or even the sum of the parts, asserts notability, as a person that would not be related to a well-known person would not have the right to this article. I'm worried that the only reason that this article is being kept is on the basis of invalid criteria. Jd027^chat 13:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to John Edwards - as nominator. Jd027^chat 13:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that I am not nominating this on the base of lack of reliable coverage, as the facts are verifiable, but not notable. Jd027^chat 13:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Smerge to John Edwards. Other than being her father's daughter, she is a non-notable student. Notability does not automatically propagate from a politician to all his ancestors and descendants who get mentioned only in connection to their notable relative. Edison (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, the immediate family of the most notable politicians ,such as serious presidential candidates are notable, in the sense of the general WP:N criteria. They get extensive coverage in the media, because people want to know about them. As a encyclopedia, that's sufficient justification to cover it also. We recognize what the world rcognizes as notable. DGG (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no WP:N criteria that justifies the article. Also, WP:N also states that "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." John Edwards was, although a Democratic primary runner for president, never a serious presidential candidate, only a failed vice-presidential candidate. Jd027^chat 21:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Notability is not contagious. I will gently disagree, however, with Jd207's assertion that John Edwards never was a serious candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 20 February 2008 (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.