Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cate Edwards

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cate Edwards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Subject is not notable, outside of the achievements of her father. Martey 01:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, notability is not by association. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Then I suppose Vanessa Kerry is not notable? - PoliticalJunkie 02:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at that article, it seems not. Of course, that can't affect this AfD per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - NN, unless we really need articles on Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed's stepson's birth father to start cropping up. I personally don't. --Action Jackson IV 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She was in the news a lot when campaigning for her dad--she was interviewed on the local stations and on network tv. Did anyone interview or write an article about Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed's stepson's birth father or interview him for anything, or did he do anything newsworthy like work on a presidential campaign? KP Botany 03:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed's stepson's birth father's dog was probably interviewed by someone. This is Canada. --Charlene 08:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"So, how do you feel about Gretzky going to Los Angeles?"

"Woof woof woof!"

"So you're just as stunned as everyone else?"

"Woof woof woof!" --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete If there was reason to believe that she would be interviewed again in the future, I'd say keep... but as is, her claim to fame is her father. If she had nobility beyond, "What do you think about your father's potential to be a president" then yeah, keep.Balloonman 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I disagree, but not strongly. I just don't see the article being kept or deleting being a big deal. KP Botany 05:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep She was a pretty high profile surrogate for the 2004 Edwards campaign, although she's been largely out of play for the 2008 campaign. --waffle iron ^talk 06:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If her only significance was on the campaign trail, perhaps a brief mention of her role in the campaign should be included in John Edwards#2004 presidential campaign and the rest of the article cut. - PoliticalJunkie 16:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She did a lot of work for the 2004 campaign, graduated in the top of her class, and is attending Harvard. Odds are, for one, she'll do more notable things in the future (its hard not to with a presidential-candidate-nominee for a father). The information in the article is accurate and verifiable as well. I'd say we should keep it. She's still several times more important that Wayne Gretzky's third cousin twice removed stepson's birth father. Kopf1988 16:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the possibility of doing notable things in the future is evidence of notability. --Martey 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Over here and here, it says she campaigned non-stop around the country traveling primarily to colleges to speak with young voters. - PoliticalJunkie 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So her big accomplishment is...she worked on a political campaign? --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when was notability replaced with accomplishment? She has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable, independent published sources. Why does anything else matter? -- Black Falcon 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Asserts and meets minimum for notability. - Denny 18:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article asserts and the sources demonstrate notability (even if limited partly to the 2004 campaign). -- Black Falcon 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient independent reliable sources. —siroχo 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply campaigning for her father does not make her notable outside of her father's campaign. If Edwards wins the election, she'll be notable, but WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. We don't have any articles detailing the lives of William Jennings Bryan's kids, even though they most likely played a large part in his high-profile campaigns a century ago. Krimpet 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Krimpet, nothing else comes even close. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO requires that an individual be the topic of multiple non-trivial, reliable, independent published sources. Cate Edwards meets this requirement. Whether the info on her should belong in a separate article or the Edwards campaign article is an editorial issue which it is inappropriate to resolve at AFD. Krimpet is calling for the deletion of an article that meets WP policies and guidelines based on a personal, subjective definition of "notability". Please reconsider your position. -- Black Falcon 07:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't base my position on a "personal, subjective definition of 'notability.'" Yes, she has been mentioned in plenty of reliable published articles... articles about her father's campaign. Working as part of a notable political campaign does not make her inherently notable herself; campaigners are regularly quoted and featured in the press, as part of their job is to get their candidate media exposure. Krimpet 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you play a notable role in a notable campaign, then you are notable. She wasn't just a regular campaigner who gave quotes to papers or appeared on TV occasionally, she was actively out campaigning for her father. She did at least 11 campaign events without appearing with her father. - PoliticalJunkie 23:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks notability of her own, and, unlike say the Bush twins, probably is not the subject of enough non-trivial independent sources to be considered worth keeping. -Elmer Clark 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple non-trivial, independent, and reliable sources about her specifically. Please see [1], [2], [3], [4]. -- Black Falcon 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Is the subject of mulitple non-trivial published works, as provided by Black Falcon above. While someone who is a relative of a notable person but has no published works about them is not a reason to keep an article, someone who is the relative of a notable person who does have multiple publshed works about them is no reason to delete them either. Under the logic of some of the delete voters above George W. Bush should be deleted because "he's only notable thanks of his father." --Oakshade 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being a First Daughter is inherently MUCH more notable than being the daughter of a vice presidential candidate. Plus, Jenna's mishaps with underage drinking and Barbara's nude partying at Yale are notable for their scandal value. Caknuck 07:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to be notable enough. There are articles for George W. Bush's daughters Jenna Bush and Barbara Bush as well - for the moment this seems to be fine. Frickeg 02:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She may be the subject of non-trivial press coverage, but that was due mostly to her father's notability and not her own. Subject hasn't accomplished anything worth inclusion. Hell, read the article, twice as much text is devoted to the academic history as anything important she's done or accomplished. Caknuck 07:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Caknuck.-- Carabinieri 12:55, 10 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.