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. This does not rule out the continuation of a merge discussion. J04n(talk page) 19:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Baldwin

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a 17- or 18-year-old who recently made her modelling debut which would make her one one of many hundreds of thousands. The notability of her parents is not hereditary. per WP:NOTABILITY Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question is not how old she is, or how recently she made her modelling debut. The question is whether or not she meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG -- "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." -- or at WP:NMODEL. — Mudwater^(Talk) 11:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator Surely if there is significant coverage in reliable sources beyond vacuous promotion the content of that coverage should be conveyed to our readership within the article to show them the notability of the young lady. That has not been done, and, at this time, one may suggest, cannot be done. Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all articles should cite sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject but AfD is not cleanup. The grounds for deletion is that no sources exist, not that the article doesn't cite suitable sources. Before nominating an article for deletion, you're expected to look for sources (see WP:BEFORE). Dricherby (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alec Baldwin and/or Kim Basinger. Notability independent of her parents has not been established in any of the available sources. Maybe it will be at some time if her career advances. At this time it has not. --Crunch (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 13:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least on grounds of nomination, which does not say she isn't notable. I don't particularly love this tabloid subject, but just because there are many young models is irrelevant to this subject's notability. There is at least enough press coverage of this individual to suggest notability, not based on her parents alone.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that one's opinion to Keep or Delete should be based on an assessment of the notability of the subject. Your opinion seems to be based on an assessment of the arguments given in the nomination. --Crunch (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator - I thought I said she was not notable, BUT a child who, it would appear, may be about to enter gainful employment is clearly not notable. Where are all the references to her notable career; where is there is a single reference to the child which mentions her alone without the reference being mainly about her parents; where is the in-depth profile in the New York Times. Again, a child who may well get a job in due course may well be of some interest to tabloid readers but hardly notable here Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage keeps on coming. Here's a column in yesterday's People. [1] It is true that merely being the child of notable people doesn't make you notable, but neither does it disqualify you. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NOTABILITY: "Routine kinds of news events (including most [...] celebrity or political news, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable". That source looks like very routine celebrity news to me. Dricherby (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baldwin family, which could be expanded a little. She gets a few points for who her parents are, but in this case I don't think it's enough. May be WP:TOOSOON, if she develops her career. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nominator's arguments that the subject does not meet inclusion criteria are clear, convincing, and correct. Merging most of this material would be incompatible with WP:BLP. --causa sui (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Returning to this AfD after my keep comment above. When my cousin handed me a magazine with a woman in it yesterday in a profile piece (maybe it was People), and it was Ireland Baldwin, I figured she probably does have coverage and is notable. Arxiloxos is right, her coverage is significant, not merely "she's the daughter of", though every article is going to mention that, something Chelsea Clinton will face for her life too.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baldwin family. There is a little bit of coverage, but it's not the sort that establishes notability in my view; if it weren't for her parents she'd just be yet another aspiring fashion model. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Don't merge there because that article violates WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Genealogical entries." Dricherby (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2013 (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.