Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Kidman

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Kidman[edit]

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

Notable for basically being Nicole Kidman's sister. Lady Lotus (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 16:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly she is best known for being Nicole's sister, but she has also had her own career which has won some awards and gotten coverage on multiple continents, as noted in sources already cited in the article. (The Sydney Morning Herald article about her second win at the ASTRA Awards commented that she had "cemented her status in the Australian pay television industry" [1].) I think there's enough to pass WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage of HER in a reliable source - check. Author, award winning host, producer... I think the "not inherited" claim is irrelevant. The-Pope (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG pretty easily, actually, bypassing inheritance concerns. I know this is a hackneyed argument, but she's definitely a household name. A Google Archives search gives a good idea of the wide coverage she's received - and those articles are all focused on her, although most of them do mention her sister. Frickeg (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Household name, significant coverage in her own right. No-brainer really. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What are the policy arguments for keep? The article, as currently written, should clearly show WP:SIGCOV, which it does now for Australia, and clearly set off in presentation the fact that she's won Cable TV awards would also make her notable under WP policy standards. So I am inclined to Keep. However, this article, like most others in AfD, needs a clean up, and the nominator was right to bring it up. Most of the times when there is a disconnect between deletion and preservation, the culprit is the article's current content. In most cases in AfD, articles should be brought up to the nominator's standards, which are really all of our standards. Crtew (talk) 14:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not the function of AfD. Articles about notable subjects can and should be improved without dangling them under the guillotine of threatened deletion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is how WP policies can be made convincingly clear to the skeptics, and this also this how articles do get improved, see WP:Heymann! There is also a WikiProject dedicated to saving articles. This article clearly needed improvement and the nominator, IMHO, was right to bring it up -- It does smack of WP:Inheritance -- even though I believe the article can be improved to convince the skeptics. Most of the arguments being used here are unconvincing to those of us outside of Australia. I'm not criticizing the editors above because when I looked at the article, I too thought it didn't communicate her significance well. When I looked, the article had barelinks -- and that's basic. I would say, No, Arxiloxosm there is NO Santa Claus, and we should all be wrapping our own gifts. Crtew (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually impossible for an article to "smack of WP:Inheritance" since no one has made the inherit argument - INHERIT is an essay that says "don't make this argument during an AfD". That's all. INHERIT was written because people had a history of arguing for keep when there were no sources to support it, they would say "I, GC, believe it should be Keep because this person is famous". It was not meant to trump GNG and discard reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What directly came to my mind without referring back to until now was this quote for guidance: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits."Crtew (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "merit" in the basic/general notability guidelines is simply they have reliable sources that discuss them. We have no special notability criteria for people who do nothing for a living :) But we do allow them in, so long as they have reliable sources about them. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is invalid and a classic logic error. WP:INHERIT is an argument for Wikipedian editors to avoid making during an AfD discussion (it is part of the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). INHERIT does not say that sources should be ignored. Two different things. Further, the INHERIT essay does not preclude the guideline GNG. The only time INHERIT would come into play is if there are no sources to pass GNG and there are editors arguing for keep based on inheritance. Which is actually a rare situation. Nobody in this AfD is arguing for Keep based on inheritance, the article has plenty of sources to pass GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject of the biography is covered in multiple reliable sources and has had a successful career unrelated to her famous sister. Article could do with some cleanup though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:27, 10 November 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.