Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingston James McGregor Rossdale


 * 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 merge with Gwen Stefani. The material in the article is already present in Stefani's bio, so a cheap redirect seems a good way to go. Joyous! | Talk 19:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingston James McGregor Rossdale
I happen to think the child is currently NN. Until the child does something inherently notable (other than being born), the info should just be included on the parents page's. Bachrach44 00:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Relation to someone notable is not enough. Adambiswanger1 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But, but, being the best looking human child isn't notable? Aw, fine, then, delete. GassyGuy 01:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Adambiswanger1. I think we need an article for Michael Jackson's son "Blanket" before this. Accurizer 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, i don't think his parents are notable either, but thats just my own POV --Xorkl000 01:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into parents pages. -- Koffieyahoo 02:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all celebrity children until they do something to earn some notability in their own right. Being born doesn't qualify. Fan1967 02:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being born does qualify if you get widely reported, written up in the press, millions of people know who you are, etc. Everyking 02:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What could you possibly say about the kid outside of the fact of birth, that's already in the parents' articles? One of the Jolie-Pitt kids' article, before it was deleted, said that she reportedly "likes giraffes and coos when she sees one." With a newborn, you can't even come up with something that pointless. Fan1967 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It's the difference between getting 15 minutes of fame, and actually being notable.  Congratulations for being born, kid!  Who are your parents?  Congratulations to them, too.  Tychocat 03:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. "first biological child of..." What's the alternative, mechanical? --Calton | Talk 04:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Adopted, I would assume (which would be their child legally but not biologically). Confusing Manifestation 11:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Gwen Stefani. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The kid also has a notable father, although less notable than the mother. Are there any potential issues involved in which bio you choose to redirect to? Everyking 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's mostly that Stefani is more famous than her husband. But if it's too hard to decide which parent to redirect to, I will support a delete instead. --Metropolitan90 04:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The birth did get an awful lot of attention. I don't see how you can delete an article on someone so famous. Who cares that he's a newborn? Famous is famous. Everyking 05:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But until the baby achieves something separately from his parents, substantially everything that would go in this article will also appear in the articles about either or both of his parents. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've always considered notability to be assigned, not achieved. Everyking 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, but utterly irrelevant, since it's not the kid who's gotten the attention, it's the event (the birth) -- and even THAT isn't all that notable, even to magazines like People or Hello!. --Calton | Talk 06:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want to move it to Birth of Kingston Rossdale? And how many sources would I need to present to demonstrate notability here? At what point would you agree with me that he's notable? Everyking 07:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want to move it to Birth of Kingston Rossdale? What part of "isn't all that notable, even to magazines like People or Hello!" did you manage to overlook? It wasn't all that long a clause, really.
 * And how many sources would I need to present to demonstrate notability here? At what point would you agree with me that he's notable?  Probably about the time you present a source demonstrating he's done something more notable than gurgling and pooping. Of course, if you have any sources for notable gurgling and/or notable pooping, I'll accept that, too. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any sources about him doing anything notable, but I've already made the argument (as I always do in these cases&mdash;we had a fuss over Britney's baby, I think his was deleted, but JFK's prematurely deceased baby was kept) that notability is assigned and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accomplishments or actions. If people think the baby is notable&mdash;and that can be demonstrated by public interest manifested in the press&mdash;then he's notable regardless of anything else. I'm not interested in what this newborn has accomplished, but rather in how many people are aware that Gwen was pregnant and that she recently gave birth. And I think there's a pretty big number. Everyking 08:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already made the argument...that notability is assigned and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with accomplishments or actions.  Which was, as I pointed out, irrelevant, but I guess you missed that, too.
 * I'm not interested in what this newborn has accomplished, but rather in how many people are aware that Gwen was pregnant and that she recently gave birth. So this is the logical place for information on Gwen Stefani's pregnancy, as opposed to, say the actual article on Gwen Stefani? ("No... That's just what they'll be expecting us to do!") Besides, who's going to look this name up? The only articles it links from is from the parents's articles -- and if you're coming from there, you already know everything that's in -- or could be in -- the article. Meaning it's, well, worthless, unless you want to add in the information about the notable gurgling and/or notable pooping. Or maybe you could use this Los Angeles Times article as a model. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Peta 06:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gwen Stefani. A no doubter. -- GWO
 * !!! --Calton | Talk 12:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * .... thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal ....
 * Speedy delete not notable. Mr Stephen 13:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, CSD:A7. The information is already found in both parents articles. Notability in Wikipedia cannot be inherited. -- ReyBrujo 15:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it can. The Disco King 15:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. I would argue it is not possible to compare a Countess with a singer's baby, not even if she is the Queen of Pop, because the Countess has a RL nobility title. :) -- ReyBrujo 16:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going for notability, though, I'm sure that more people have heard about Gwen Stephani's baby than some random Countess in the Netherlands. That would be even more true if we were to talk about some other celebrity kids' pages that have been redirected, like Sean Preston Federline, or Suri Cruise. In both cases, the only "notable" thing the kids did was be born to really famous parents - exactly what qualifies the Countess. (Don't get me wrong - I'm in favour of deletion, I just don't see the point of indiscriminately collecting articles about non-notable members of the royalty.) Cheers! The Disco King 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I like medieval titles that were left behind by most countries in the world, mind you. However, it is my belief that, by using the 100 year ahead test, there are more chances for a dutch to have heard about the Countess (as she may be included in history books due her affiliation with the Crown, minimun as it is) than the baby of a famous singer (which may very well discover an AIDS treatment in the future). I don't like nobility titles, but if determined countries still use them, it is because they believe in them (if not the people, the government). -- ReyBrujo 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anytime someone's article includes the phrase "nth in line to the throne" where n is in single digits, it's pretty guaranteed that person's entry gets kept, rightly or wrongly. Royalty is genuinely hereditary. Being a pop star isn't. Fan1967 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Thought about putting this one up for AFD myself.  Wickethewok 15:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-speedy per nom. Computerjoe 's talk 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fairly weak keep. I think it probably deserves an article. To be technical, WP:BIO says "Persons achieving renown...for their involvement in newsworthy events". Which seems to qualify the kid (unless you argue that the events weren't newsworthy, but they did make the news). I don't think keeping it does any harm. Trebor 17:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but also The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) From what I understand, her only noteworthy event was the birth. -- ReyBrujo 17:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect Not a royal. CalJW 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gwen. In the past, AfDs have concluded that such children should redirect to the more notable parent.  young  american  (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2006 (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.