Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Palin

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 Bristol per SNOW, as any boob can tell. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Palin[edit]

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

Vanity, a daughter of a former governor of a US state, who is absolutely not notable in her own right (she is only known for being the daughter of said politician). There are hundreds of current and former US governors living, and I'm sure a lot of them have children. If we allow the creation of articles on children of former US state governors, we open the door to children of county governors (and similar positions) of other countries as well, which is ridiculous. (Is Bristol even a name?). At the very best, this could be a redirect to the article on her mother who is the only notable member of her family.

Note that the talk page alleges that the article was "kept" some years ago, however, the discussion did actually not concern this page at all, but "Sarah Palin redirect talk pages". A redirect to the article on her mother is a totally different question. Urban XII (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bristol now gets coverage in her own right, she meets WP:BIO. the nominator is using a WP:ALLORNOTHING argument which should be avoided. yes initially it was because of her mother but now whatever she does I'm sure the media love to report it. gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep She may not deserve (or want) as much coverage as she gets, but she does get enough individual coverage to nullify WP:INHERIT. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 07:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As LibStar says there's plenty of RS coverage of Bristol herself, and lots of it's already in the article. As for children of other elected officials: if other such children are the subject of stories in the AP, MSNBC and Time then they deserve articles; if not then there's no precedent. I fail to see a problem. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reluctant Keep, to be sure, but passes WP:RS and WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging by the number of references, she meets the bar for notability. We all agree it's pretty lame that she's attracted this much coverage--but she has attracted coverage. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO and WP:RS. Tangurena (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- given that she's appeared in a cover article in People Magazine, its a pretty safe bet that A: She's achieved notability separate from her mother, and B: She's not trying to remain out of the public spotlight. With individual notability, and BLP1E out the window, I see no reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - 28 reliable sources. The subject was cast into the public eye through no fault of her own, but she's there like the Bush Twins, Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, Patty Hearst and many others. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Being the relative of a notable person does not make one inherently non-notable; she easily meets WP:GNG in her own right. Finally, as of the MfD the nom mentioned, there was discussion over a year ago on whether to split Bristol off from her mother's article. The split happened in May, there was a contested PROD in June, and there's been no further discussion about a mergeback since—and on that angle, there's enough about Bristol that doesn't relate directly to Sarah that she should have her own article, rather than getting merged back into an article about her mother. —C.Fred (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obviously satisfies the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under which criterion for speedy keep does this qualify? It is probably a snowball keep at this point, but it isn't speedy per se. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think criterion 1 applies, although it might require a little stretching; certainly the first reason stated, "Vanity," is utter nonsense, and most of the remaining rationale is rather facetious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While notable mostly for one event, the absolute maelstrom of press coverage made this person a household name during the election, and the bottom line is Wikipedia wouldn't be complete without this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we must not confuse notability with accomplishment, wisdom, popularity, etc. they all may help to make someone notable, or not. she is highly notable now, and thats enough for an article. and i agree she probably doesnt deserve so much coverage, but thats not my call, unless i am rupert murdoch. (maybe i am...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting SNOWy. Does the next passing admin want to put this AfD out of its misery? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll probably be the last one to comment, however Bristol has been covered in ABC, Slate, MSN, PEOPLE, and many others. The other politicians? Their children haven't done all the interviews or had media coverage the way Bristol did; the other Palin children do not have their own articles, nor do the youngest two Hilton sons. These are major news anchors at their finest. Also, Bristol is the name of a market and English university. See here. ★Dasani★ 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and speedy close.--Milowent (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep when editors who traditionally delete everything vote to keep, you know there is a problem with this nomination. Well referenced article, very well known person in US. Ikip 17:19, 1 January 2010 (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.