Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claudia Conway

Claudia Conway

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete as nominator Completely non-notable social media person has received coverage because of her famous parents. Clear example of WP:NOTINHERITED. And with sources including her own social media page, People Magazine, and Elle.com, she also doesn't meet WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then restore and protect the redirect. this is quite weird to make a page about somebody who hasn't done anything with his or her career yet and is famous for being someone's famous relative only.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R. It's a viable and useful redirect. None of the sources mention the subject independently from her mother. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kellyanne Conway as per WP:1E Tahadharamsi - (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and it's disingenuous to say her social media page and People are the sources when she was given exclusive interviews by USA Today and Business Insider, and covered as the primary subject (not a "trivial mention" per WP:GNG) of articles by Newsweek and Forbes. As her mother was not involved in these interviews, WP:NOTINHERITED is not relevant here and there is established notability with sources about her social media prowess, not about her parents'. Omnibus (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of the seven total sources, three are non-trivial. But she still fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. KidAd (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I said above, she definitely does not "fail" WP:NOTINHERITED as the source material is about her and not her mother. WP:BLP1E, which you didn't mention by the way, I'm not sure I'd call becoming a viral sensation a one-time "event" per se... that's much like saying A-ha is not notable because they were a one-hit wonder. Omnibus (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is not one source about her that doesn't include a mention of her parents. There are thousands (millions?) of teenagers using TikTok, and some of them are pretty popular. This one is only special because she has notable parents. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument isn't worth much, but I would reconsider her notability if she had written Take on Me. KidAd (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not planning to vote on this. On the one hand, I generally think it's most fair and sensitive not to include Wikipedia articles on children; on the other hand, I'm finding it hard to stop laughing right now reading her opinions on her family's associates. But I'd note that most profiles of people do mention famous family if they have any. Nicholas Soames is very notable in his own right but you try finding a profile of him (especially for an international audience) that doesn't mention that he's Winston Churchill's grandson. Blythwood (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that Nicholas Soames became independently notable when he was elected a Member of Parliament. He was not notable when he was 15. KidAd (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd, oh, completely agreed. I don't think this is in the same league, which is why I'm not voting. But Claudia Conway is getting profiled in articles in which the focus is very clearly on her, not her parents-it's just that it would be a complete failure of journalistic writing if the article didn't mention who they are. Further, she's the one getting interviewed by national newspapers, not her parents. It's not like the article from when she was 12 in which she's mentioned but clearly not the primary focus. Blythwood (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need truly abundant sources to justify creating an article on a minor and we are lacking such here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, for reasons outlined above, and I would contest the notion that interviews in Business Insider and USA Today are GNG-supporting sources. Being interviewed by a major publication is enough of a claim of significance to pass A7, but interviews are not considered independent sources unless there is substantial critical analysis--which there certainly isn't here--so they do not contribute to GNG. There is little independent, significant coverage of her, and what exists is very lightweight stuff, which is probably why this pseudobiography has been padded out with trivial unencyclopedic nonsense about how this 15 year old "supported Mental Health Awareness Month with her social media posts" and complained about her parents on TikTok. Spicy (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kellyanne Conway: Per reasons above. Barely found independent news about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect with/to Kellyanne Conway. All the sources cited are from the past week and have to do exclusively with her social media 'feud' with her parents over her left-leaning politics. I would call that 'one event' so am suggesting a merge per WP:BLP1E. For those who may disagree with that being 'one event', I would recommend reading WP:WI1E. Samsmachado (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I find it difficult to believe that the first time anyone really noticed this page was the same day that her parents tried to censor her internet communication. She isn't a notable figure, but her status is currently in limbo. We don't know what her parents will do to censor her, and frankly if she disappears off the internet, this entry should stay. Something worthy of note will happen in this situation, and we do not have the full story to say we should not keep this information available, no matter how inconsequential it may be. Lolbster (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — Lolbster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. There is a lot of people fawning over her and comparing her to Greta Thunberg and Parkland activists (Emma Gonzalez for example). These people has media giving them a lot of attention for some time. Since these people have their own articles, Claudia Conway deserves her own article in Wikipedia as well as with these people i have mentioned. By the way, coverage of her could evolve as these people has experienced over time. SMB99thx Email! 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would gladly ask administrators that this AfD should be Relisted. I have a feeling this AfD needs a clear consensus (Redirect or merge? Redirect does not mean merging) and participation of this AfD is pretty low. SMB99thx Email! 00:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a solid idea. Some of the sources aren't good, but others are strong, and I would definitely expect the situation to develop. I may lean toward merging until significant separation from her parents is deemed, but I agree there should be more of a consensus. KB11001 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article and available elsewhere about her meet and exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]