Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt

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 of the debate was redirect to Angelina Jolie. --Ezeu 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt

No reason to believe this child (distinct from the parents) will be notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Yamla 03:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angelina Jolie, like her other children. Kusma (討論) 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The siblings aren't currently redirects on Pitt or Jolie's pages, from what I can see. Starcross 23:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, they seem to redirect to Jolie's page. If they don't, they should as per prior AfDs. --Yamla 23:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KKEEEEPP!! This is all 100% true information! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurenself (talk • contribs) . _{User's first non-sandbox contribution. Grandmasterka 05:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because the information is true does not imply that it should be on the Wikipedia. Now, if the subject of the article is notable, that's another story. I don't think the subject is but this is a matter for debate. --Yamla 14:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and don't redirect. It's POV to redirect to the mother rather than the father, and vice-versa. Sarge Baldy 03:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already lots of information about the kid at Angelina Jolie, but none at Brad Pitt. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddox Jolie-Pitt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahara Jolie-Pitt where the other kids were redirected. Kusma (討論) 03:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This child is very notable. She's the talk of the tabloids, and is bringing attention to Namibia. - Richardcavell 03:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hype over the child will die down, Namibia will be forgotten. And ever since when were tabloids reputable sources? Honestly, who cares? NN. Hobbeslover | (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For God's sake, this is a day-old infant. The kid has eaten, cried, slept and pooped, none of which are remotely notable. Fan1967 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at all in herself as per Fan1967 Bwithh 04:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelina Jolie per Kusma. --Metropolitan90 04:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not keep per above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mother's article. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her mommy or her daddy. Being born is not a very notable feat, you know. JIP | Talk 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mama in the same way that Maddox was MLA 10:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I noted when I removed the prod, the child meets basic notability standards already, and there isn't a clear redirect/merge target. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What notability standards would those be? Is it her best-selling novel, Gurgle Gurgle Goo? Is it her hit single, "Wah Wah Wah"? Was it her stint as the head of the WTO? Or maybe, as per User:Fan-1967 above, she pooped in a particularly notable way? --Calton | Talk 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggest reading WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 17:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I suggest you cite actually back up things you say instead of pretending you've done so and hoping no one will notice. --Calton | Talk 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which section? The only thing I can see that might be remotely relevant would be "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" and that only applies if (a) childbirth is a "newsworthy event" and (b) the newborn may be considered a "participant". Fan1967 20:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's the part. We, unfortunately, don't get to choose what's newsworthy. Unfortunately, it's been widely determined that this is. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        To me, the most applicable section of WP:BIO is the alternative test of Expandability. As the world stands on May 30th, 2006, I don't see how this article could ever exist as more than a stub. A month from now, maybe the kid shoots Mr. Burns . . . who knows? ScottW 23:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if we want to use applicable alternatives, Shiloh certainly meets the Google test and verifiability standards, but they're in the "alternative test" reason becaue they lackwide support. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, I understand that there are other alternative criteria which are just as much not consensus as Expandability, but for this article, this one makes the most sense to me. Based on history, as it stands today, can this be a good article? My opinion is no. I'm open to being proven wrong though. ScottW 00:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if e're going to continue to look at WP:WEB, we need to start looking at what's generally accepted before what's alternately accepted. Generally, there's no question - Shiloh meets the basic standard as her birth is a newsworthy event, as pathetic as that is. If we want to move to alternatives, it certainly meets Google and verifiability, and there's plenty of legitimate speculation that it doesn't pass expandibility or 100 year test. Of course, one wonders if people would think the Lindbergh baby would be memorable either. so yeah. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, the sad state of the news . . . but that's another subject. But yes, this child's birth is certainly covered in the news, no question there. Despite that, I feel ok about advocating deletion on this one. WP:BIO is clear that "meeting one or more [criteria] does not mean that a subject must be included." I think that this is just such a case where that clause is relevant. I just don't see how a good article can come of this. This is why I'm citing Expandability here. ScottW 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        her birth is a newsworthy event Which shows how wrong Badlydrawnjeff is with his ridiculously overbroad criterion: the child is not the subject of the news stories, the mother giving birth is. So, how is the child herself newsworthy? --Calton | Talk 01:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh really? Yes, I guess all those stories about what the name "Angelina" means backs that up just fine... --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 02:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelina Jolie. A one-day-old kid not only hasn't done anything, but hasn't even been around long to have had anything worth writing about, short of pasting in hourly bulletins from People or Hello!. --Calton | Talk 11:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, but note that notability for persons need not be a matter of their own actions, but can also come about by their being the object of some notable event. Sandstein 14:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - silly. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelina Jolie, where the child is mentioned. This is fairly standard practice for young children famous by virtue of parentage who haven't yet done anything in their own right. Xoloz 17:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The child is notable, but not notable enough for its own article. If someone is only famous because of someone else, they should be mentioned in the famous person's article, and their name should be a redirect. If it's not a redirect, it should be deleted, but definitely not kept. -- Kicking222 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at the very least - at this rate you might as well give Jolie's pet dog an article. Bretonbanquet 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The same thing happened with Suri Cruise, which now redirects to Katie Holmes (I believe). The kid is notable for the circumstances of her birth, so if there's going to be an article on anything, it should be on the Pregnancy of Angelina Jolie or something like that. There would certainly be an abundance of sources for that article. The Disco King 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this does not need to be a seperate article it can be merged into the article Angelina's children. (The previous comment was added by User:Mythstalker on this nom's talk page. The Disco King 18:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep If Maddox and Zahara have Wikipedia pages, then why can't Shiloh? This sounds a little hypocritical to me. Fanficgurl 4:18 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, I'd vote to delete those pages, too. --Yamla 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have pages, but redirect to Angelina Jolie. Kusma (討論) 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to read pages you're talking about. ;-) Grand master ka 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre has restored the redirect as per the last AfD so Kusma is right again. Seems that children of celebs get their AfD decisions reversed without people noticing - Brooklyn Beckham was one that I recall. MLA 09:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above digital_m e^(t/c) 21:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I understand the arguement for this one meeting WP:BIO. But really, at this point, there's nothing to put in this article that can't just as easily be found in the parent article. A redirect gets you to the same information. ScottW 23:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The other children are redirects. This should be too. The kid's only notable because of her parents, and she's two(?) days old now, for crying out loud. Grand master ka 00:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per prior AfD discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maddox Jolie-Pitt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahara Jolie-Pitt. Lbbzman 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Any content to parent's article. JoshuaZ 01:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's going to be very notable sooner or later anyway (when she grows up). In fact, she is notable as of right now considering the extreme media attention she has gotten lately. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:28, 31 May, 2006 (UTC+1)

Do you have a crystal ball? Many children of celebrities grow up and deliberately choose to avoid the limelight. No way to tell. Fan1967 18:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. As Angelina Jolie is reputedly a Liverpool fan, it pains me to make such a vote on a prospective Reds supporter. Meh ;-) SoLando (Talk) 21:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of course she is notable on her own, just like Jolie's two other children. Why do people think these articles keep popping up, because nobody can notice them? It's not really the point, whether this child is of any particular importance either, the mere fact that people keep creating this article (after it has been deleted before) shows the apparent relevance this subject has to a lot of people. Wikipedia shouldn't act as an elitist group trying to impose its own intellectual standards, but remain true to its origin by being a encyclopedia of the people. (138.246.7.73 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Couldn't this argument be used to prevent deleting any article on the grounds of it not being notable? Don't forget, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Has this article really been deleted already? --Yamla 23:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The latest Time magazine even mentions her birth in the "Milestones" section. If Time mentions it, then it is notable enough for Wikipedia.--SeizureDog 01:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time didn't list it because of who the child is, but because of who the parents are. They're the notable ones. Fan1967 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There should be a page about the Jolie-Pitt children considering there's three of them and they're People's most beautiful family and their parents are superstars. Sio280 17:05, 2 June 2006
Keep: It would be sexist to redirect this page to one of the parents.--Greasysteve13 07:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mention the kid at both parent articles, but no way she is WP:N on her own. -Jcbarr 12:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But who would you redirect the article to?--Greasysteve13 00:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The comment didn't mention a thing about "redirect". TheProject 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stupid afds --DragonWR12LB 11:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She hasn't done anything of note, save being born to famous parents, and that information is better left on their respective pages. Starcross 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a big thing for the media, and I think it should be NOT DELETED.
Delete - who is this person? why is she more noteworthy than anyone else? just because of who her parents are? that is what is wrong with society - when we emphasize who someone is based on their parents or what they are instead of who they are. if she actually does something besides be the child of jolie and pitt then maybe she could get an article. check back in 20 years. Jeremys779 03:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelina Jolie, if the sibilings of Shiloh are redirects to their adopted mother, what's so notable about Shiloh? --Ter e nc e Ong 13:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; child is only noteworthy because of her parents. —tregoweth (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I'm not for Wikipedia becoming the next People magazine either, but this kid is of public interest. Sean Hayford O'Leary 03:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I pity whoever put this up for deletion.. In three-six years you'll be laughed at for doing this =). -24.92.43.149 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per some of the above comments. Quite notable, I guess. The JPS ^{talk to me} 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angelina Jolie.--Fallout boy 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both parents and delete -- redirection to any one parent is improper. TheProject 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per TheProject. --M e rovingian {T C @} 06:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the mum, per the other two children. Colon el Tom 12:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (if Keep fails Redirect) : Like it or not this is a phenomenon --DuKot 13:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Vlad|-> 14:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What other child's birth led to 4.1 million dollars being donated to charity?

Well, but that information could easily be incorporated into either of the parents' articles. After all, it was one or both of them who decided the money should go to charity. And in fact, that's where I would expect to find such information. --Yamla 20:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly - it's down to Jolie and Pitt that all this money is going to charity, not the baby. Likewise all the "public interest" in the child: it is not the child that's interesting, but the parents - why is this so hard to understand? If this child merits her own article, then surely all the children of notable people should get their own articles. Bretonbanquet 22:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dea 23:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was already speedy deleted earlier. What could the article possibly say besides "Daughter of Brangelina"? ... discospinster _talk 23:32, 7 June 2006 (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.