Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Darwin


 * 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. This is why AfD is not a head count. From this debate, I cannot discern any effective rebuttal, sufficient for a delete close, to the argument that these sources make the subject satisfy WP:GNG. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Darwin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Great-grandson of Charles Darwin. Article is literally a list of "achievements". Some achievements are: "In 2006 he visited Charles Darwin University", "In 2010 he said he thought it was OK to teach kids creationism" and "In 2005 he did a programme for Radio 4 on the Galapagos Islands." Bgwhite (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Bgwhite (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment What exactly is the argument for deletion here? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bgwhite's argument would appear to be that the article is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of generally trivial events in Chris Darwin's life. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative."
 * Delete. The article is a grab bag, failing to assert how Chris Darwin is notable.  I quote WP:IINFO: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  Thus, a list of trivialities, such as we have here, even when gaining passing mention in WP:RS, does not add up to notability. Qworty (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: poorly sourced list of snapshot-minor-events (not even enough to make a decent WP:RESUME), mostly linked to being a professional-descendent-of-Charles-Darwin, and thus falling under WP:NOTINHERITED. Neither an articulation of any particular notability, nor coverage of any depth whatsoever. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that it is possible to be notable for being a descendant of someone notable, if being such a descendant is what you do for a living.   Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

- WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions


 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm well aware of that thanks. My point is that if what this person does is, as you say, being a professional-descendent-of-Charles-Darwin, then it is possible to be a notable professional-descendent-of-Charles-Darwin.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeant Cribb (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even were I willing to accept this argument (and I'm still far from convinced by it), the odd dinner/banquet/radio-show/etc hardly amounts to being particularly notable even as a professional-descendent. As I said above, most of the events tabulated are very minor. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Only independent claim of notability I see is perhaps "In 1991 he co-authored with John Amy the book The Social Climbers", but then just co-authoring a book is not really enough (I've authored a published book, but I'm not notable). My "weak" qualification is due to Sergeant Cribb's point - while notability isn't inherited, can a case be made for someone whose career is being a professional descendent? (It's not that he's just a descendent, it's that he's making a living out of it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't think we can say that he is notable "for being a descendant of someone notable, if being such a descendant is what you do for a living," since the only thing he's earned from this "profession" since 1991 is one free dinner at the Melbourne Museum. Qworty (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It does appear that he's tying the "adventurer, conservationist and media personality" shtick to his relationship to Darwin -- although, as you point out, most of the actual coverage is for the unpaid portion of this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One free meal over the past twenty years is a good way to lose weight, though. Qworty (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone did say "being such a descendant is what you do for a living", did they? So this really doesn't seem to be relevant.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete This person has not been subject to significant coverage directly and in detail. So they fail WP:GNG. Obviously. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 19:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I fully agree that notability is not inherited. But in this case it appears Chris Darwin has leveraged his ancestry and gone out to establish a name for himself with significant coverage in reliable sources such as:      .  I think this is enough to pass WP:GNG - but I also agree that the article is very poorly written and needs substantial trimming to focus it down to what is cited from reliable sources and is actually notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The 2nd BBC story (reference #5) is about what 6 descendents are doing and only mentions Chris Darwin once in passing. References #1 and #3 are about him donating money to the Charles Darwin Reserve.  The articles are more about Charles Darwin and the reserve than him.  Reference #4 is a promotional BBC article promoting BBC Radio 4's broadcast, "It's My Story", where Chris Darwin traces Charles Darwin's voyage.  Would news stories about a descendent of Charles Sturt donating money to Charles Sturt University make them notable?  I don't know. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I mean about the sourcing. It's extremely thin, mentioning him only in passing.  It doesn't really fulfill WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment in any event, merge-and-redirect to Darwin–Wedgwood family seems more appropriate than deletion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did consider that, but to be honest, there's not much content remotely worth merging. He failed an A-level. He was a guest of honour at a dinner. He gave some money to charity. He shares some genes with his ancestors. All those statements apply to me too, actually. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► Chief Counting Officer ─╢ 21:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Only two out of four for me then. But I didn't get into the Guinness Book of Records.  Did you?  He did.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * * Comment The donation generated significant coverage for him specifically, as he was featured in multiple reliable source articles over a period of at least 6 years for it:  (in 2003)  (in 2009).  He was the subject of an article in a reliable source in 2010  about his views of creationism being taught.  He also was the primary subject of a documentary which received reliable source coverage in 2005 on the BBC .  Seems that he may have leveraged his ancestry, but that he has successfully established a name for himself in terms of notability as well.  ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per significant, direct coverage of the article's subject in multiple, reliable sources uncovered by ConcernedVancouverite. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  21:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Very very minor celebrity failing GNG. References are generally incidental. Moondyne (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTINHERITED seems especially apropos here. WP:AUTHOR is probably the closest subject-specific guideline, but the sources do not seem to support that or the general notability guideline. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As discussed above, this seems to be a case in which the part of WP:NOTINHERITED "a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative" applies. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My only concern with WP:NOTINHERITED is that, in this case, its application seems to walk a fine line/grey area. I agree that it is likely that Chris Darwin's charitable work and comments would not be subject to the type of significant coverage they've received if he weren't, you know, a Darwin. But I'm more used to seeing WP:NOTINHERITED applied to cases where an individual has literally done nothing of note -- where notability rests exclusively on being someone's child, cousin, what have you. That isn't necessarily the case here. Chris Darwin has, in essence, leveraged his inherited notability to support his actions, and his actions have been the subject of significant coverage. Applying WP:NOTINHERITED to this case suggests, to me, that there is a higher bar of notability for relatives of notable persons, which is surely not the intent of the guideline. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED means that we shouldn't decide someone is notable just because of their relationship to a notable person. It does not mean that people can't in fact become notable because of such a relationship.  Apart from WP:NOTNEWS, we don't tend to judge why someone is the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, nor should we generally.  postdlf (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the coverage here is NOT SIGNIFICANT. It is trivial and passing, as anyone can see. Qworty (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't comment on that question. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is the vital question. Qworty (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not "trivial and passing" coverage of Chris Darwin. Neither is this. Nor this. You may go bold and ALL CAPS at your leisure, but I have no idea how you conclude that those three articles, which are entirely about Chris Darwin and are in reliable sources, spanning years from 2003 to 2010, constitute only "trivial and passing" coverage. Perhaps you can clarify. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem with the three articles you cite is that none of them describes him doing anything at all notable. They are articles about trivialities. Please have a look at WP:IINFO: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I wouldn't be surprised if you can find a published source that says that this guy got out of bed on a Tuesday morning and had eggs for breakfast. The question raised by the sources presented for this article would still be, So what? Yes, in bold. Qworty (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "None of them describes him doing anything at all notable"? I read them as discussing a sizable donation he made to fund the purchase of a notable nature preserve, raising money for charity by writing a book about a world record he set, etc. I don't know that I would call these "trivialities," and if they were, surely they wouldn't be the source of so much coverage. As for WP:IINFO, I don't see how that applies. The examples listed -- plot-only descriptions, lyrics, sprawling lists of statistics -- don't seem to have much to do with this article and its content. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment/Request to Closing Admin (et al.) I've just taken a little time and made substantial revisions to the article in an attempt to bring it more in line with encyclopedic tone standards, as well as focusing on what particular efforts of Chris Darwin's have been the source of significant coverage (mostly his charity/nature advocacy work). Curious to see if the revision has any material effect on anyone's opinions. As for the request, would it be possible to userfy this article if consensus is to delete at this point? I think there's a more than passable article to be had here, given the sourcing available. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  23:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: as the majority of the commentary on this AfD substantiates, the main problem is not with the "tone"/writing-style, but with the triviality of the material, that does not (in the opinion of many of the commentators) articulate a substantive claim to notability. None of the sources "address the subject directly in detail", so there is no significant coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Aye, I recognize that consensus seems to be going in the opposite direction. I'll be honest: I revised the article because, while I have total faith in anyone and everyone's ability to evaluate sourcing, etc., the manner in which the article was written previously practically screamed "this is a list of random stuff," and I know I certainly have a tendency to adopt a skeptical eye when looking at an article like that. It looked like someone had Googled "Chris Darwin" and copy/pasted the search previews. I tried to flesh things out a bit more, and there's more material in the sources that could conceivably be used (hence my question regarding possible userfication). Either and any way, I'll respect whatever decision is made here. Frankly, on reflection I can perhaps see the reasoning behind concluding that a mountain of sources covering Chris Darwin's actions might amount to little more than a mole hill of coverage of Chris Darwin. Obviously I don't quite see it that way but I respect consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  06:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the 'Public Appearances and Opinions' section still has a strong feel of "this is a list of random stuff" to it. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. I almost left that section out! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at this example. This is the "Biography" section of the article as it currently stands. In fact, this is the entire section. Despite the fact that it is well-sourced, it is utterly trivial. If this is what passes these days for "notability" on Wikipedia, we are in deep trouble:

"Darwin was born in 1961 in London. Ironically, given his famous ancestor, Darwin struggled with biology in his school years, failing the biology A-level. He subsequently worked in advertising and television commercial production for several years in the United Kingdom before emigrating to Australia in 1986. [1] Darwin is married to Jacqui and has three children, Ali, Erasmus (Ras), and Monty.[2] They live in the Blue Mountains north of Sydney, New South Wales, where Chris works as a nature tour guide." Qworty (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a background section. The next section covers the efforts that have provoked coverage. I'd posit that many similar background sections in BLP's on Wikipedia are full of similarly non-notable information; birthplace, early education, profession, family life, etc. That's their purpose. Since we're apparently posting paragraphs, here's the paragraph that should probably be considered. I only post it because I don't want someone ambling in here and concluding that the section you've just posted is supposed to be the main argument for the subject's notability:


 * Darwin co-authored the book The Social Climbers. Written about a 1989 event in which Darwin and a group of seven other friends held a dinner party on top of Mount Huascaran, the book raised £10,000 for the National Heart Foundation. The dinner party itself set a world record for the "highest formal dinner party on Earth." [3] [4]


 * In 2003, Darwin donated $300,000 to the Bush Heritage Australia charity to help purchase the Charles Darwin Reserve in Western Australia. [5] [6] The 65,000 hectare reserve is intended to preserve plant species. 


 * In 2009 he became an ambassador for Bush Heritage Australia." [7] ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Half a book about being one seventh of a world record + a $300,000 donation do not add up to a substantive "argument for the subject's notability". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking in circles. I'm running away for now, will keep eyes on this. It's two days overdue for an Admin to come in and do the Admin thing as it is, and continued "I'm right; no, I'm right; no, me" type conversation is probably not constructive at this point, eh? If it matters, taken at face value, I absolutely agree with what you just wrote. My position is that the coverage of these otherwise middling actions grants them notability, but it's clear you and several others disagree, and for not invalid reasons. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.