Can the article include the name and birth date of the subject's child, which the subject has made public? --17:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes as per admin close at Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP. The policy on biographies of living persons "clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced." The ultimate unimpeachable source is the parents (or their representatives) personally broadcasting the name and birth date to the world. The names and birth dates of children are important biographical details; no serious, encyclopedic biography of anyone from John F. Kennedy to John Wayne would exclude this content. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Question: Tenebrae asked me to weigh in here, and I would like to clarify something: Where in WP:BLP does your quote appear, Tenebrae? I don't see it. I'm not saying I disagree with its reasoning, but before I form and express an opinion here, I would like to clarify if policy/guideline specifically says what your quote indicates. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's a quote from the RfC's admin close. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Can you link me? Nightscream (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That particular admin seems to be misreading the policy. The section of WP:BLP about family members states: The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject – nothing about birth dates, which are dealt with under WP:DOB. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The admin didn't misread the policy: Per WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources...." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the section goes on to say ... the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it which applies to the child in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A TV star is not "borderline" notable, and WP:DOB states citing be "by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." The subject in this article's case clearly and absolutely does not object to providing the day that she herself gave birth — a huge milestone in her or anyone's life. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Her child definitely is borderline notable and that is the issue. Her child is a separate person. If her child met GNG and had an article, here for example, then we should include the child's full birthdate in that article. This issue is about what we report about the child. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Mostly no – exact DOBs for non-notable minor children should never be included in Wikipedia articles, even if sourceable, for a wide variety of reasons (some of which I've outlined in the thread before this one); listing month and year is fine, and listing just year is definitely OK. If names of non-notable minor children have been widely publicized (and, FTR, a single mention in People Babies is not "widely publicized"), then including the first names is OK provided a consensus among the editors to do so, but full names (i.e. middle names) again should never be included. Basically, as per the advice given at WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAMES. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I think anyone would agree that a report in Time Inc.'s People magazine website, which gets more than 72 million unique visitors a month (and heavens know show many views/hits) is "widely publicized. (Source: "People, EW Set Traffic Records", Adweek, May 15, 2015.) But I agree with you that I would not rely on People (or Us Weekly etc.) alone. Unless the parents or their representative have released it publicly, I would not rely on any outlet that gave the information based on shadowy anonymous sources of unknown credibility.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Global consensus can not be judged here, please goto WT:FILMBIO. Govvy (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No My opinions are the same as IJBall's. Govvy (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes provided that the subject has voluntarily disclosed such details to the public. Any concerns of privacy are then entirely moot. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No (edit conflict) - Childrens DOBs should never be included here, Year is fine but Day and Month aren't. –Davey2010^Talk 18:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would suggest that when Kim Kardashian poses on magazine covers with her baby and details her children's birth dates, that it is whitewashing to pretend this pertinent biographical information is not widely public. It is the parents' choice, just as it is Ginnifer Goodwin's and Kristin Bell's choices not to release such information to the public. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  There's several problems with that. One is that we are a general interest encyclopedia, not a news outlet, so we are under no obligation to follow what the latter do (and, indeed, we have some responsibility to not act like they do). Two, I don't care what the parents do – living non-notable minor children do not themselves have the ability to consent or not as to whether their personal information is widely disseminated, and as an encyclopedia we need to be cognizant of that. Finally, there is zero encyclopedic value to including the specific details about living non-notable minor children in encyclopedia articles whose subjects are their parents, not themselves. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That is your opinion only that there is "zero encyclopedic value" in providing this pertinent biographical detail, and you're entitled to it. However, in point of fact, any book written by actual biographers such as Robert Caro always includes such information, which suggests that the opposite of your opinion is true. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's a full biography, not a biogarphical summary Wikipedia article. Also, the former you have to purchase, while the latter is disseminated for free, so they aren't comparable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's sort of missing the point. The point is that this is unquestionably valid and pertinent biographical material. Whether one believes it belongs on Wikipedia, one cannot say it has zero encyclopedic value.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  IJBall is absolutely bang on - The children don't consent to their date of births being plastered everywhere!, If the parents want to act irresponsibly then that's up to them but I don't see why we should follow suit, If you were a baby/child would you want the whole world and random strangers knowing your full name and date of birth ? ... No ofcourse you wouldn't, Lets have some decorum here. –Davey2010^Talk 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No with some exceptions First name and year of birth are sufficient if well sourced. There is no encyclopedic necessity of giving the full legal name and full date of birth of non-notable people and it does preserve some measure of WP:BLPPRIVACY for info released when too young to object if we redact stuff that doesn't really matter anyway. If the child is notable enough to meet WP:NBIO on their own then the info would belong in that child's article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Nope, definitely no First name and year of birth are just about acceptable, but even then I'm uncomfortable with including the personal information of non-notable children. I my opinion may differ when it comes to notable children (Child actors who are children of another notable actor is one common example) but we've no encyclopaedic reason to publish the full name and date of birth of someone who struggles not to vomit everywhere, let alone give consent to pubish personal information. It's more difficult to remove what was once published than it is to never publish it in the first place. -- Thanks, Alfie. ^{talk to me | contribs} 19:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If the parents not only have no issue with it, but indeed put it out widely on media, I'm not sure why we would want to censor pertinent content available in outlets reaching multiple millions, with the parents' permission.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes - per Snuggums and others. I don't understand why birthdates are treated like some state secret. It's not like we're publishing Social Security numbers. Birthdates are ALREADY OUT in the public, in People magazine and 1,000 other publications, in addition to celebrities' own social media (not only when they are born, but celebrating 1st birthday, etc), so what is the issue? Do people think they are going to steal their identities from Wikipedia? Please. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's not about identity theft .... It's about in some respects respecting that child ..... Would you want your childs full name and full date of birth on an encyclopedia ? .... No and no one with half a braincell would, Sure "Birthdates are ALREADY OUT in the public" because the parents are damn right irresponsible and only thinking about themselves! ((Redacted)), Point is we shouldn't include so much personal info just because the parents release it .... It's all about decorum and as I said respecting that child, If they grow up and say "Yeah I want my full dob and full name on my parents Encyclopedia page" then sure that could be arranged but at present we shouldn't do something as personal as this all because "the parents have released it". –Davey2010^Talk 01:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Wow. So now it comes out.

  This isn't about what professional biographers and scholars believe is standard. This isn't about the mission of this encyclopedia.

  This is about punishing "irresponsible" parents who name their children "(Redacted)." Parents you think have "half a braincell" [sic]. This is about you thinking that you, you personally, know better than the parents what is right for their children. That is the height of hubris. You wouldn't want anyone telling you that they know better for your children than you.

  These parents are savvy enough, smart enough, talented enough and hardworking enough to reach the heights of their profession. To have lawyers and other advisers, who wouldn't let them do anything to put their children at risk. Celebrating their children's birth with millions of other people isn't putting any child at risk, according to THE PARENTS and, certainly, the parents' legal advisers. Even you say this isn't an issue of identity theft. So what is it?

  This is standard biographical information. It is useful to biographers, journalists, and cultural historians to help insure ACCURACY. That is the primary mission of this encyclopedia: To give accurate facts, and, especially in an Internet era where falsehoods become accepted as real, to prevent inaccuracies.

  It's not for us to be the parent police. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I would disagree. This is not standard biographical information, maybe for the subject it is. This adds nothing to our understanding of the subject. It is not useful to anybody. What accuracy?? If the child becomes notable in the furure on their own, then publish away. --Malerooster (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In reference to the question posed by my good colleague, see response at 23:55, 10 February 2018. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes I don't see the issue here. If she wanted to keep this information a secret, she wouldn't have talked about it. It's not our job to hide information that she isn't trying to hide herself. JDDJS (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes The article CAN include it, but NO it really shouldn't because it adds NOTHING encyclopediatic to our understanding of the subject of the article. Also, user Tenebrae and I have disagreed over this for YEARS with him citing the Austin Green RFC (less than 10 folks involved 2 years ago) as some type of final and definitive ruling for this issue. Maybe its time to revisit this in a wider forum, ect. Regards, --Malerooster (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)ps *@Tenebrae, would you still be open to using just birth year, ex. (b.2018)? You seemed to open to that as a compromise before. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you for asking and for giving me the opportunity to respond. As a professional journalist and biographer myself, my tendency is not to see information censored that is already widely available publicly. When I'm giving the ages of a subject's children, for example, when writing a biographical article, it's critically important for the sake of accuracy to know, certainly, more than the year. I'm not sure who we're protecting when the parents are perfectly happy, of their own volition, to release this information publicly to millions of people. This is public knowledge, a major milestone in any subject's life, and I swear to you as a professional that for reasons including the accuracy example I've given, it is of encyclopedic value. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I really don't like to think of this in terms of "censored" information, just that it doesn't add anything and its almost trivial. Why are we listing or giving the ages of the subject's children in the first place? Also, it had nothing to do with protecting anybody, that seems to be a strawman argument that I certainly never made. Unless there is some context for listing the kids ages, why do it? In the case of Giselle Brady, it made sense, because see was trying to comfort her crying children (ages 5 and 8, not the 12 year old, he manned up, i actually cried too, but those were tears of joy, i digress), so maybe the reader wondered how old they were. Otherwise, its really not that important, especially to have the exact day and month. --Malerooster (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)ps, I am also have no problem with having a citation you can click on to find the the exact dob, so you can do your calculation, it's almost more a MOS issue if you will. --Malerooster (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Seriously, you're citing your a professional journalist and biographer? When you're writing a bio, then you should know whats polite to write and was isn't polite to write, you normally have to get the permissions of the family unless deceased. There are ethical rules for journalists that one shouldn't cross, does that mean you're willing to cross the line for the story? I think you need to step out, get some fresh-air and look at what you want to write for Fonseca and others like her. The reader doesn't always need the exact information, the citations are there to confirm whats on the article and expand on it. You don't need to have complete information on wikipedia all the time. There must be a level of understanding for the reader. Also have you ever read any DPA'S? Have a look at Data Protection Act 1998 and tell me, should you be listing the full name and DOB of a minor? Taking a full name and DOB is considered a collection of data, then you're storing that data on wikipedia. Just because these people annouce to the world the birth of their baby gives no rights for wikipedia to store this exact data, the reason to break it, is also to protect wikipedia. This is why I say No to your RFC. Govvy (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What you suggest is absolutely contrary to journalistic ethics and responsible scholarship. Getting permission from subjects to write about them is beyond wrong. If that were the case, Trump could say, Don't write about my children's meetings with the Russians, or, Don't mention Baron's name. "Polite" has absolutely nothing to do anything. As for what the reader needs, I am telling you truthfully as someone who has to write about notable people on a regular basis that I need to be accurate. Having only the year or even only the month means I can't give an accurate age, and when this information has been made available to the media by the parents themselves, I honestly don't know what your objection is other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Because it's not based on privacy, according to the parents. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes if there´s a decent non-tabloidy source, and IMO People is good enough when there´s no contradicting sources. But this is within editorial consensus and it doesn't have to. My personal preference is "Fonseca and Bean have a daughter, born in 2018." If they have more kids this year, months can be added. If it matters, I was alerted of this discussion by Tenebrae on my talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The "widely published" part of WP:BLPPRIVACY can't be forgotten here – a single report in People Babies does not qualify as "widely published", and doesn't justify inclusion: you'd need multiple, multiple press report sources before it might be necessary to consider publishing specific details of a living non-notable minor child. Again, that's also going to be the difference between the children of an actor at the level of Fonseca, and a child of somebody like a Kardashian. In this case, there is again no strong justification for publishing all of the specific details of Fonseca's daughter on Wikipedia, especially an exact DOB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This was addressed above, but as it's brought up again, I'll post this again: I think anyone would agree that a report in Time Inc.'s People magazine website, which gets more than 72 million unique visitors a month (and heavens know show many views/hits) is "widely publicized. (Source: "People, EW Set Traffic Records", Adweek, May 15, 2015.) I would also add that we can't have subjective criteria as to who's "big enough a star"; Fonseca and Kardashian are both TV celebrities, each going into millions of homes each week. That's far different from the CEO of Sears.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  While Greta for some reason hasn´t made her own wishes known, there´s more than People: Former 'Nikita' Co-Stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Noah Bean Welcome First Child, Share Photos, Lyndsy Fonseca : La star de How I Met Your Mother est maman, LYNDSY FONSECA: DER "HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER"-STAR IST MUTTER GEWORDEN, etc. Still not necessary to include, but well within editorial discretion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I should probably have qualified that by saying "multiple higher quality" news sources. IOW, when the details gets reported in mainline press sources like LA Times, etc. then a discussion about whether to include all of the details might be justified. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As an example of a bio article about a mother where info about her children is well publicized in multiple reliable sources see Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Her children also have their own articles for some reason, even though very young. So we do in general permit this detailed info in bio articles if it is significant about the person the article is about and significant in general. Neither of those cases apply to this article. Mention of first name and year of birth is all that is needed to meet level of coverage warranted here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No for the birth date. See WP:DOB: [If] the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source. In this case the children are not even "borderline" notable; notability is not inherited from their parents. The argument that the parents have chosen to publicize this information is irrelevant; we aren't here to indiscriminately document every bit of trivia that's "out there". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: The wording of this RfC seems overly broad; following a strict interpretation of WP:BLP, the answer would be "it depends on the reliability of the source". If the RfC is supposed to be asking whether this info should be in this particular article, then the answer would depend on editor consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• No to DOB Not out of any privacy concerns, but because that stuff is trivial and useless. The exact month and day add nothing to the primary subject unless they explicity do, in which case that would need to be demonstrated. (Summoned by bot) Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - I'm glad we've established that privacy isn't an issue in instances when the parents themselves broadcast the information. Yet there seems to be WP:ICANTHEARYOU going on. I'm afraid I don't see how anyone can say this information is "trivia" when a professional journalist who writes biographical articles has said repeatedly that these are necessary in order to write accurately about the subject. Accuracy is one of the most important things any encyclopedia is supposed to provide.

Even if one doesn't believe me, or if one somehow believes journalistic and scholarly / academic accuracy isn't important, the birth of a child is one of the most significant dates of a subject's life — at least if not more important than the date of marriage, and I don't see anyone advocating to remove marriage dates from Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Birth is significant to the mother but not generally to the world at large, except in rare cases of royalty, other than how the pregnancy and child rearing might effect her notable activities. We can and should use editorial discretion about how much information is needed for an article which is mostly about the notable achievements of an individual with personal life details strongly summarized already. The fact she has a child and birth year seems sufficient for this article. Further details that might be a chapter in a comprehensive biography such as which hospital, how long in labor, the exact time of birth, weight, medical complications of birth, whether or not it was natural or cesarean, who the godparents ended up being are judgment calls of whether or not it matters in the balance of what else is presented about the subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a smokescreen — not one person here has even suggested "exact time of birth, weight, medical complications of birth," etc. Let's please stick to what we're actually discussing: a date. And, once again, this information given publicly by the parents is a basic fact necessary for accuracy, as I have discussed as a journalist and biographer. Giving birth is a huge milestone in any subject's life, and — presuming their parents and their advisers have made the decision to release the information to media — being deliberately inexact and vague for no reason is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are giving accurate, well referenced information if we list the year and list the correct year. We don't need to give the exact instance of birth date and time and can choose what we present as long as it is well-referenced. We don't need to report everything and have editorial discretion of what we do report and can choose to truncate to what is the key important details. Year is sufficient for a non-notable person. Article is about Fonseca, not her kid. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, giving birth is a major milestone in the life of the subject. But look, I know you're an editor of good faith. Let me ask, since I'm genuinely unclear on this and I sincerely want to understand: I've stated that as a newspaper journalist who often writes on tight deadline about entertainers, I — and many, many other professionals like me — often are required to say in a biographical article something like: "Jane Doe, 30, and John Doe, 31, have two children, Bob, 9, and Susan, 7." This can't accurately be done without knowing the birth date, since the year alone would only allow a range of, for example, "Bob, 8 or 9" (since we wouldn't know when the birth date would be relative to publication date). I really am trying to understand why, in an era when it's fashionable to criticize press accuracy, anyone would want us to say "Bob, 8 or 9" rather than being scrupulously accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)I'd argue that exact marriage date doesn't matter either in most articles along with who was in the wedding party, were the marriage was held and a whole bunch of other details that might go in a full biography but don't really matter for the level of detail wikipedia is presenting about personal life. Year and to whom is sufficient as it is a life transition. But, like details about birth info for children, that is an article consensus decision about what to include for a subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) We're writing about the BLP subject not the child ....., Marriage is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement which should be avoided, Consensus for the most part is to NOT include so I would kindly suggest you admit defeat on this and move on. –Davey2010^Talk 19:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't a matter of "winning" and "defeat" — it's a matter of thoroughly airing out all arguments pro and con. And given that an admin in a previous RfC exactly like this found consensus to include the dates, I find your preemptive comment to be not in good faith at all.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, we haven't "established" that, at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If their parents, their representative and (presumably) their legal advisers have no issue with making the birth date public to media, then, no, privacy is not an issue according to the parents. Even a number of those in this discussion who are against including the public birth date are saying privacy is not an issue. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Yes, but why— I don’t see that anything in the policy is specifically excludes it. Although there is probably a worthwhile policy discussion over this issue. The children of a celebrity are, for the most part non-notable and the guidelines is to include only the year of birth. But it doesn’t bar the use. Still, I disagree with the notion that this is encyclopedic content. That’s just celebrity voyeurism as far as I am concerned. We’re here to provide good strong biographies, not list every piece of trivial information that we happen to find somewhere. You’re free to put in the name of the dog and a color of their cars too but it’s silly and pointless and does contain risk for the child who may choose to remain more private once they are able to consent.. If there was a wider policy discussion I would definitely come down on the side of excluding it as it provides little to no encyclopedic content and could be harmful to individuals that are not subjects of the articles. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 09:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I've explained, it is encyclopedic content in that it's necessary, when writing a biographical article about a celebrity, in order to accurately provide ages. A year alone leads to vagueness and inaccuracies, which is the opposite of what an encyclopedia should do. This is aside from the fact that a subject having a child is one of the most important timeline milestones of a subject's life, and falsely equating that with "the name of the dog" is smokescreening.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Provisional Yes, provided we can establish parental intent. Given the language of WP:BLPNAME, it would seem that including dob's of subject children is fine as long as they're well-sourced, and there is no indication that the parents do not wish it. If the subject has made the date public, as alluded to in the sentence at the very top of this discussion, then I see no argument to omit it. BLPNAME certainly is not consistent with the arguments I see here that it should be omitted. If, however, we cannot establish through sources that that parent did not publicize the date, then I would omit the exact date. Nightscream (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lyndsey Fonseca announced it on her verified Instagram page at https://www.instagram.com/p/Be6wqvEnLTE/. She's got 172,000 followers, and the news was picked up by People (approx. 72 million unique visitors a month) which ran the Instagram post and linked to it. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tenebrae – you seem to be operating with the belief that we at Wikipedia are obliged to do what everyone else does. We are not. Our role is different. We're not social media. We're no up-to-the-minute entertainment news. We're a "historical encyclopedia" that is supposed to record truly notable events and people. The point here is that the exact details of Fonseca's child are simply not notable either in terms of her biography, or in their own right. Or, at least, that seems to be the rough consensus here. Are there cases where this kind of exact info might be notable enough to include? Yes, sure. In most cases, are these exact details notable enough to include in an article such as this one? Nope. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And again, I respectfully disagree, and I take exception to your suggestion that I somehow believe this encyclopedia — to which I've volunteered responsibly for nearly 13 years — is "social media" or news. I speak as a professional who does biographical research for a living and has contributed professionally to published motion picture reference annuals when I say that the birth dates of a subject's children are not only absolutely notable and major pieces of timeline information, but, indeed, are pro forma. To be perfectly honest, I've always been astonished that editors who are not academics or professional writers/researchers would argue that it is not — just as I would never suggest to a doctor what's notable in a Wikipedia medical article. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's been more than 30 days...[edit]

...so I'll go the admin board for RfCs and ask someone to formally close this.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, another editor quite responsibly beat me to it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tenebrae: I'm reviewing now and will close shortly. GiantSnowman 14:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]