Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Kennedy Hill


 * 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 delete and redirect to Kennedy family. There is relatively broad consensus in Wikipedia that notability is not inherited - and no other "keep" argument is made here. The "keep" arguments have therefore to be given but little weight.  Sandstein  09:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtney Kennedy Hill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable: being the daughter of notable people and being a representative for the UN AIDS Foundation is not notable. AnUnnamedUser  (open talk page)  16:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  16:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Being a member of the Kennedy family, actually, is notable. As much as we like to hide behind policy and pretend that it isn't.  Just like all of those infant/toddler princes and princesses in England.  They are only notable because of whom they were born to.  Yet, they have Wikipedia articles.  At the age of three or four, they have done nothing notable.  Except to be born.  Similar analogy.  Being a Kennedy is notable.   That's my two cents.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. The article reads like a gossip column and focuses entirely on her marriages, with more than half its content devoted to Paul Hill, including unencyclopedic filler such as the description of their wedding. There's zero focus on the subject herself save for one measly mention about her work with the UN AIDS Foundation. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Even the tabloids don't have enough content to leak gossip about her, because she has deliberately choosen to stay private and not to live publicly. Not notable at all, not even a redirect to Kennedy family is needed. --89.14.51.65 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kennedy curse. Delete. Being a new member of the British royal family and being a distant member of a US political dynasty are not the same thing, certainly not when it comes to exposure in a quality way by quality sources. So no harm redirecting, unless there's more encyclopedic substance that can be added. Because what there is simply does not merit an encyclopedia entry. News coverage right now is high due to recent death overdose, but I estimate that to be fleeting. El_C 18:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you know she is alive, right? --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I do now! El_C 19:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is the mother of the young women who recently died. A redirect to Kennedy curse makes no sense. --- Coffee  and crumbs  19:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect from Saoirse Kennedy Hill tripped me! El_C 20:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP - There is a page for .  For a child that lived two days. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.124.44 (talk • contribs)
 * That death made 1963 a "pivotal year" for neonatology — it's about quality coverage by quality sources. El_C 19:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There absolutely SHOULDN'T be an article for that infant.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural speedy Keep – No one seems to know who we are actually talking about here. No reasonable decision can be made at this moment when the news is so hot. I have said it before, this is not the time to discuss deletion. We will get nowhere with this AfD. All we are doing is damaging Wikipedia's reputation by having a cat fight during a sensitive time. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. What news are you talking about? Right now in the deletion discussion it's too early for there to be a consensus, so we should keep discussing. How are we damaging Wikipedia's reputation if (probably) no one outside Wikipedia is going to see this?  AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  20:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The same news that brought all of us to this page. There is a giant tag now at the top of the article, that is visible to everyone, that links to this page. I bet that thousands of people have already seen this page. Already on 1 August, 1,100 people viewed the article. Are you saying it is a coincidence that you happened to nominate this page on 2 August. You should have waited. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So let's see a timeline: on August 2, I am patrolling recent changes and looking for vandalism. A removal of a deletion request is found to be "Likely vandalism," so I check it out. It turns out that a user just removed that for no reason, so I requested a discussion. What you're saying is that Wikipedia should keep pages up because their subjects are in the news, which isn't true. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is, for a short period of time. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  23:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * the redirect has changed, so I think we're fine. El_C 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That was my hope in changing the redirect.--- Coffee  and crumbs  20:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: Being the daughter of a former US presidential nominee (although I suppose RFK was not officially a nominee since he was assassinated prior to the convention) is just not sufficient for notability. I put a PROD on the article thinking that the article is so blatantly deletable that a deletion would not be controversial. I am surprised that the PROD was overturned and even more surprised that the article has existed for almost 15 years (since September of 2004) without a deletion discussion. Banana Republic (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: At the start of the discussion the only non-personal life item in the article was that she served as a representative for the United Nations AIDS Foundation. It appears that an effort has been made to expand that section of the article, and other non-personal life items now include: (2) working for the Children's Television Workshop at an unspecified role, (3) serving as her brother's campaign treasurer, (4) serving as a board member of the JFK Presidential Library and Museum, and (5) serving as a director of fund-raising for Robert F. Kennedy Memorial. While all those roles were certainly keeping her occupied to some extent, those roles are not all that notable. Being a campaign treasurer is similar to being a tax preparer – it's a job filling out paperwork. Being a board member of a non-profit organization means that she attended a meeting once a month.
 * So while I applaud the effort, it is unfortunately not enough to change my !vote. Banana Republic (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment A proper BEFORE was not done. There are many hits on Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22courtney+kennedy%22&tbm=bks. --- Coffee  and crumbs  20:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply: That's your evidence that a proper BEFORE was not done? Using "Courtney" + "Kennedy" as a search term?  Tell you what, what of those hits gives the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires for the source to count towards notability?   Ravenswing    22:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have added material to the article sourced from my search result. I will be adding more. --- Coffee  and crumbs  05:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough,, but that's not what I asked -- a single sentence can impart biographical information suitable for an otherwise-notable article. Allow me to reiterate: what of those hits gives the "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires for the source to count towards notability?  Link a few sufficient to the task and I'll be happy to change my vote.   Ravenswing    09:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , here is just one https://books.google.com/books?id=exZYWnR3mp8C&pg=PA714. --- Coffee  and crumbs  09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=50UUAQAAIAAJ has an entire lemma on her. --- Coffee  and crumbs  10:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hrm. The sections of that first entry Google will allow me to see are brief namedrops, and there's nothing showing on the second at all.   Ravenswing    10:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , I linked to the index page where "Hill, Mary Courtney" is listed for a reason. You have to change the page number in the URL to see the pages. Pages 656-658 has the most detail about her 2 marriages. Not everyone is notable for their career. Some people are notable for their personal life. The lemma in can be found on page 714. I have bought the book and it is in the mail coming to me. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  10:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * KEEP - If the article is deleted, where will we find info on all Kennedy family members (3 full generations, including Joseph Kennedy). Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovemylife9 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because she may be "interesting" does not make her notable. See Wikipedia's general notability guideline for what constitutes notable. Banana Republic (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about if she interesting. If notability wasn't a Wikipedia guideline, we could make a Wikipedia article for every human in the world. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  23:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An article that simply lists Kennedys genealogically would suffice.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: There is no part of WP:BIO the subject meets, nor any part of the GNG the subject meets. So far the Keep voters have put forth arguments that violate established guidelines and policies; they didn't seem to care about properly sourcing the article a week ago, and I doubt they will a week from now.   Ravenswing    22:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not inherited (unless the off chance is you’re Archie... but I still have my disagreements with how that went down.) and that includes political dynasties. I am staunchly against this “family member” thing on here unless there is overwhelming coverage of them that reaches general notability guidelines. Trillfendi (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete aside from a brief mention of her work with the UN AIDS foundation, there's nothing specifically pertaining to the subject herself, and being a Kennedy on its own just isn't enough to warrant a separate article. She fails WP:BIO. Notability indeed is NOT inherited, contrary to what some people seem to think. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Although the royal families argument was brought up, being a Kennedy is not a title in America, whereas being a prince or some other official position in government often does grant enough notability for an article by the title and also the news coverage. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  02:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article was created in 2004.  So, for fifteen full years, Courtney Kennedy Hill was "notable".  The minute that her daughter dies, she is no longer notable.  Yeah, makes sense.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No one realized that this page should have been deleted for fifteen years. A user in this discussion has already expressed surprise at the absence of a deletion request in all this time. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  03:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Being around for that long is a moot point per WP:ARTICLEAGE, which says "Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot." SNUGGUMS (talk / edits</b>) 04:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, there's no notability criteria anywhere on Wikipedia that defines "notability" as "why look, someone posted an article about it."   Ravenswing   10:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A non-notable article "sticks around" for 15 years. And no one notices?  Then, in the blink of an eye -- after fifteen years -- the article is deleted because the subject is "no longer" notable.  Seems pretty random, arbitrary, and capricious.   What does that say about Wikipedia's deletion policies?  And, by extension, this AfD that we are having right now?  It's pretty hard to put any "faith" in a system that works like that.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure how the page has lasted for so long, but did you not read how long it's been around is an irrelevant matter here per WP:ARTICLEAGE, or do you just not care? Nobody taking this to AFD beforehand isn't by itself a valid reason to keep either. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It is indeed relevant. Because, for 15 years, this article was implicitly "notable".  When someone creates a new article (that is non-notable), it usually gets deleted that very same day.  Usually within a few minutes!  So, for a newly-created article to stick around for 15 years implies notability.  Or implies that the Wikipedia "deletion" process is terribly broken.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * While the deletion process certainly isn't perfect, I wouldn't go so far to suggest it's "broken". Staying around for as long as it had simply is an indication that for some reason nobody thought to take this to AFD beforehand. Some might not have even known it existed in past years. Regardless, suggesting that we should keep solely because of how long it's existed is a cheap cop-out. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just because the page collected dust for 15 years doesn’t mean she was automatically independently notable all this time. Isn’t that argument called... false cause? Trillfendi (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If I make a page about myself but an admin deletes it in two hours because I am not notable (anymore!), I was notable for two hours (but not anymore since my article was deleted!). Uh-huh. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  23:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, or at least Wait. She is in the Kennedy family, that's notable. Anyway, the article's been up for 15 years. I think that if there needs to be an AfD on it, now's not the time. She just lost her 22 year old daughter, we need to wait on this. This AfD shouldn't exist. 1779Days (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ARTICLEAGE, WP:NTEMP, and WP:GNG have all already been used to refute your point. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  00:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED too. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  00:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Her daughter's death just means that the page got a hell-of-a-lot more views than normal. On Aug 2, 2019 the page got 223,247 views. The day before it got only 1,100 views, and in the two weeks prior it never got more than 964 views.
 * And that's how Wikipedia works. When a page gets more views, it gets more scrutiny. The fact that for 15 years nobody scrutinized the notability of the subject of this biography should by no means be considered an endorsement of the subject's notability. If there was a previous AfD which closed as a Keep, then that would have at least been something to consider. But since consensus can change, even a previous AfD that closed as a keep would not have necessarily meant a full endorsement for the notability of this biography. Banana Republic (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete,being a Kennedy is not royalty and her personal accomplishments are not enough to earn an article.Let her be covered in a list of minor members of the family,perhaps.12.144.5.2 (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there is a Kennedy family page. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 04:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know,but it links to people's articles rather than provides capsule bios of those who don't rise to the standard of having articles.12.144.5.2 (talk)
 * We can make it do that. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  22:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge to Kennedy family. She's in the news from time to time. Bearian (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This is basically a POV-pushing apologist tract for the IRA and their fellow terrorists. The United States is a republic and we do not recognize roaylaty. People who serve on minor boards and as tresurerer to congressional election campaigns are just plain not notable. What is broken is not the deletion process. What is broken is the die hard save every Kennedy article at all cost activist who are trying to foist a false, morally bankrupt and destructive family into the role of American royalty. I reject them and again chant Chapaquidick. What is broken is the article creation process that allows articles to be created without much oversight. This process was even worse back in 2004, in fact those were the wild west days of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has no legacy inclusion cretieria. In fact, inclusion criteria have changed on many issues, consensus has changed. In this case blatant random inclusionism and failure to reasonably limit articles on hangers on is a key problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a place for memorials, and we do not do procedural delays because of deaths of 22 year olds. That whole argument is rubbish, and it is high time we excised lots of these articles on non-notable peole who have never done anything more notable than be a tresurer in one congressional campaign.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kennedy Family. All personal views about whether you like or dislike the Kennedy family aside, the family itself is very much notable. However, I do not think that Courtney Kennedy Hill is independently notable. I believe that by redirecting to where she fits in the Kennedy family is most appropriate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Does anyone on the delete side object to her being mentioned in another article about the Kennedy family if the article is deleted (just trying to see if there is a split between the delete and merge/redirect camps)? AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  19:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections to a mention within the collective Kennedy family page. <b style="color:#009900">SNUGGUMS</b> (<b style="color:#009900">talk</b> / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 21:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I see absolutely no reason to mention her in the article on the Kennedy family. She is entirely unnotable and has done nothing worth mentioning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's true that the articles on the Kennedy family only mention the notable ones. AnUnnamedUser   (open talk page)  01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete her sole notable action was deciding to be born into a notable family. No objection to hanging her on the proper branch of the family tree on the collective Kennedy family page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ---  Coffee  and crumbs  23:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – She meets GNG:, and there is an entire entry about her on the Kennedy encyclopedia. It is not our job to judge why she is notable. She is notable for her personal life and her weddings, and marriages. Her career is not notable so what? ---  Coffee  and crumbs  23:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia specifically about her family doesn't have the same notability standards as a general interest encyclopedia.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment passing mentions in books about other people do not rise to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per previous arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:747C:B4E6:7CB0:7320 (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.