Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dannielynn Marshall Stern - Wikipedia

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 but RENAME to Dannielynn Marshall Stern paternity case. The situation is notable, the person is not. Herostratus 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dannielynn Marshall Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod, moving to AFD instead. No opinion. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith#Paternity. There is nothing said in this article that couldn't be said at that section.--Isotope23 14:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article cites references which demonstrate multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources, therefore establishing notability per WP:BIO. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per walton. --Selket ^Talk 17:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Walton and WP:BIO Alf photoman 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - How can WP:BIO possibly be applied to a 5 month year old infant, who hasn’t had any life of her own? There is nothing substantial in the story about her as person, but only about the involved adults. Moreover, many of the quoted sources (TV transcripts, interviews) where people raise their claims are primary sources in the sense of close to the situation. I would invoke here the clause Presumption in favor of privacy of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, who suggest for non-public persons that the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. (Which means for me also no redirect and rather not consider carefully where to mentioning the babys name in other articles.)--Tikiwont 19:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I suspect the "spread of titillating claims about people's lives" has already been achieved by the substantial media coverage on this issue, which means Wikipedia is not the "primary vehicle"; therefore this article is not in violation of WP:BLP per se. WP:BIO doesn't specifically exclude infants, nor does it say that the sources must contain substantial coverage about "her as person"; it only says that the coverage must be "non-trivial", i.e. more than a passing mention. If the whole source - and there are six or seven separate sources cited - is about her paternity, then IMHO this counts as non-trivial coverage. As to "not mentioning the baby's name in other articles", that would count as censorship of established information, which would be in violation of WP:NOT. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You may suspect correctly about the news of the different claims spreading in any case. I referecned to WP:BLP not because I see it violated, but since I would want to stay on the side of caution with respect to an evolving story, instead of having a 'biography' that only consists of paternity claims. In this sense I would also want to clarify my comment about the rather not mentioning of the name which I don't want to censor as it should be e.g in the Smith article and is present anyway in the referenced sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs)
      • Comment. Has lived five month, so there is five month worth of biography. The point is that being verifiable and having multiple non-trivial mentions is just to inclusive. According to the rules she's in Alf^Photoman 00:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rules? There are no rules. I think what you are referring to is a guideline. Tony Fox (talk · contribs) has pointed out below that we usually redirect celebkids and that is the practice that should be followed here.--Isotope23 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to you can call a monkey a sub-evolved man, makes no difference, guidelines are rules too, no matter if you like it or not Alf^Photoman 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment I agree it is hard to establish a biography on a 5 month infant. So why not rename the article to what it truely is? Such as "Paternity lawsuit of Dannielynn Marshall Stern" Joneboi 11:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith; redirecting to the mother is what we've done in the past with articles on such eminent celebrity munchkins as Suri Cruise and Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, and it's a good idea to do so here as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Tony Fox, for the love of all that's holy. This century's Barbara Hutton, perhaps, but not as of yet.--Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith. This is for the same reason that Connor Peterson redirects to Laci Peterson. The infant is not really notable at this time. She (unlike Connor Peterson) may grow up to be notable, but so far she is a pawn in a legal struggle, and her actions have never been the subject of a reliable source. I see all coverage to date as trivial.Inkpaduta 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this person is not the center of the case, Anna N S is the center, and this spin-off, regardless of motives, is not justifiable. Children are particular protected by BLP.DGG 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT I mean c'mon people, are you serious!? This article should be directed to Anna Nicole, everything that is said on this page, is basically said on anna nicoles page under Dannielynn. this page should DEF. be redirected! Mcoop06 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This article meets the primary criteria for being a notable person. I think it is unfortunate that some people feel the need to kill off the article before it gets a chance to grow. --JHP 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The custody battle of Dannielynn is unique in its circumstances. I imagine the ongoing case will eventually serve as citations for future legal arguments and it is important to have a comprehensive article about her for reference. As stated before Dannielynn does meet criteria of WP:BIO and while she has not directly done anything more than any other infant can do she indirectly has had a huge global impact. For example, on google news there are currently (at time of my post) 14,399 articles available referencing her name. I say no delete. Joneboi 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Dannielynn Marshall Stern paternity case, or something similar, otherwise delete. Dannielynn isn't herself notable. What notability there is concerns her paternity. --A bit iffy 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now, as she's an infant. Her life's story is covered at Anna Nicole Smith. GoodDay 02:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Walton. 1ne 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable person. --Mperry 07:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good way to present paternity.Ghosts&empties 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But we could use some pics and info about the girl--User:NFAN3|NFAN3 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this piece of trash about an infant. There's no way this article's existence can be justified only because her mother was some famous person. This is an encylopedia, not a British tabloid paper. --Nyp 00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the controversy in itself is notable, and as she grows older she'll become notable in her own right if she chooses to pursue a career in entertainment.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your reasoning outlines exactly why this article should be deleted. The controversy is notable but she is not. If she becomes notable in the future then a page can be created about her at that time. Until then we shouldn't keep the page around in the hopes that she one day becomes notable. --Mperry 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Good article but as of now she should be redirected to her mother, and this great infomation moved to the paternity section of Death of Anna Nicole Smith Epson291 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep I changed my vote after looking at it again, even if she is an infant she has become very notable, much more then half the people on Wikipedia. This arctile will grow in time and will be a good place for her paternity issues, will, etc... Epson291 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect there is nothing noticeable about the child, only about the mother. Had this been any other living person down the road from you, they would not even be in here. The coverage is about the adults, not the child. The child is only being brought in because of the adults in the case. Futhermore, had no one stepped forward to claim to be the father, there would be no need to have this article. A true encyclopedi would reference in the mother's article especially since the child holds no notibility or reason to have it's own entry. --Maniwar (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Walton. Mr Tan 13:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWe should keep the article because it is newsworthy. She is also a celebrity, and is currently in the news. --Nina90 18:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Tony Fox. The only potentially encyclopedic things that can be stated about her now are things like her birth, the dispute over her paternity and custody, and her potential inheritance, all of which should be and are discussed in the article about Anna Nicole Smith. Most of the news articles that refer to her also refer to her mother. Besides, Dannielynn is too young to be able to discuss anything with the media in her own right. --Metropolitan90 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a notable person. Age is irrelevant. Everyking 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough, passed BIO easily. - Denny 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Tony Fox. Very few individuals under the age of six are notable - the odd missing child, individuals in line to succeed as a head of state, child actors. Her notability, as weak as it is, does not derive from something she's done, something that has been done to her, or her current or future position in life. It derives from her parentage, and that can be discussed in her one verifiable parent's article. --Charlene 18:39, 6 March 2007 (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.