Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzanne Farrington

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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Farrington[edit]

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

Per WP:INHERIT - Recluse daughter of two famous individuals. Sources mention her, but are written about others, with the exception of blogs and obituaries. Fails WP:GNG on her own merits; article shows more of what she did not do than what she did. Of particular encylopedic note is a sourced statement that she attended a wedding... and that she maintained a friendship... Scr★pIron^IV 21:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Suzanne was the "keeper of the records" on her mother, Vivien Leigh and is mentioned in numerous articles as being important in her mother's life. Take a look at the extensive bibliography alone. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much my point. Most normal people's children are important in their lives. She is mentioned, but not the subject of anything. Merge her article to her parents, at best. Scr★pIron^IV 14:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat The article is much more in depth than that, it also has had at least 10 editors whohave contributed and developed the article over time. There are plenty of other articles that are much less detailed or supported by reference sources than this. I count at least a half dozen sources that deal with her, although, granted, her connection to her famous mother is always addressed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reluctant keep I basically agree with Nom/Scorpion. No accomplishment, and the fact that her mother was famous doesn't justify an article. Except that mundane details of her childhood were covered by the press, her wedding garnered long, detailed news stories, she is covered in books about Leigh, and when she died The Telegraph ran an obituary. So the sourcers are there. But what also impresses me is the traffic this article gets. 5,000 or 6,000 people come to read this article every month. So, although she looks to me like a young woman who led an unnoteworthy life, the news coverage and the numbers of people who read the article do seem to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is another option I also considered. Redirect to Vivian Leigh at best as there is content here but questionably solid enough for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There can be cases where the children of famous people can attract sufficient attention in their own right (even without any specific accomplishments of their own) to be notable. This is one of them, because of the significant coverage in all biographies of the actress. this is one of the few genuine instances I've seen at AfD, except for children of heads of state. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The question is not whether you or I or anyone thinks that an article topic is "worthy" or whether an individual is "important enough" to merit encyclopedic biography, but rather whether the topic or individual has been covered in sufficient depth by multiple independently-published sources of presumed reliability to support such a piece. This person has. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2016 (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.