Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Coyne


 * 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. There's a clear numerical consensus to delete. Moreover, looking at the keep arguments, I don't see any which are either policy-based or persuasive. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sarah Coyne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not inherited - the only reason this person seems to have an article is because they are related to some powerful/famous Canadian political figures. While there is some coverage in RS, the focus of that coverage is really just on the fact that she has stayed out of the public eye and hasn't done anything that would be notable. I don't think that's enough to hang an article on. Most of the other sources cited in the article aren't about Sarah at all (they're about her mother, or one of the Trudeaus) and only mention her in passing. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator asserts an article was started on Sarah Coyne "because they are related to some powerful/famous Canadian political figures." May I remind nominator that WP:GNG says when topics "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article".  I suggest that the ongoing coverage of Coyne means she does measure up to the GNG criteria.  GNG doesn't say an individual has to have done something notable to merit coverage in a stand-alone article, merely that they "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Nominator asserts "Most of the other sources cited in the article aren't about Sarah at all (they're about her mother, or one of the Trudeaus) and only mention her in passing."  (1) Shouldn't compliance with WP:BEFORE oblige nominator to do their own web searches, not rely solely on references currently in the article -- particularly when the article is only hours old? (2) Some of the references do only cover her in passing.  Notability is not binary.  Almost none of the subjects of our BLP articles became notable for a single factor, like winning the Victoria Cross.  The notability of almost all of our BLP articles is calculated by adding up separate notability factors, which wouldn't make the individual notable, in and of themselves, but do make them notable when all added together. When multiple articles cover Coyne in passing, but each focus on a different aspect of her life, passing mentions can start to add up to "significant coverage".   Do I need to list the factors that add up to notability for Coyne?  Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete If I saw a couple more WP:RS like the Toronto Star article, I'd be on the keep side. But I've done the WP:BEFORE work and I don't. Everything else is indeed just passing references, as the nominator says. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete because "Known for: Pierre Trudeau's only daughter" does not make notable. Martin Morin (talk) 01:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Being a former Prime Minister's only daughter does not make her notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems clear enough to me that Sarah Coyne is Not a Public Figure WP:NPF. At most, she would be a subject notable only for one event WP:BLP1E and, in any case, that event (her birth) was not of her own making. If [when] Sarah has accomplishments and, through them acquires notability that warrants an entry, it seems possible that some of the material in the current article under discussion could be considered for inclusion in this hypothetical future article as part of a back-story.  For now, though, Sarah -- particularly as a young person in her early 20s -- seems entitled to go about her life without the current article hanging over her head. Radinbc (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP1E applies to individuals known for "1 event". Which of the multiple events in this young woman's life are you singling out, and why are you discounting the other events?
 * NPF doesn't preclude coverage of the individuals to whom it applies. Rather it urges an additional level of caution.  Doesn't that mean that if someone thinks NPF applies to a particular BLP article, and they think the article isn't showing the additional deference owed to an individual who didn't choose to be notable, their first step would be either raising the issue on the talk page, or through regular editing?  You wrote Coyne "seems entitled to go about her life without the current article hanging over her head" -- without offering a single passage in the current article that you consider problematic.  What's up with that?   If I were an individual with elements in my life that some might seem tabloid fodder, and I could choose between having no wikipedia article, and a nice, accurate, fair-minded wikipedia article, I'd choose having the wikipedia article.  Why?  Because if there was yellow journalism about me, I would feel better knowing that the fair-minded people who read the yellow journalism, or heard about the yellow journalism, would be able to google me, and find the mild, accurate, fair-minded wikipedia coverage.  Geo Swan (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Her mother, father, and half-brother are notable in their own rights, but Sarah Coyne is not. She's simply related to those notable people, and notability is not inherited. She is correctly mentioned in her relatives' articles, and that's all she warrants. Meters (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly notable.  PK  T (alk)  12:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly notable.  PK  T (alk)  12:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- usually the tool that shows how many times an article has been read shows a spike of several dozen reads, on the day it was created -- which I think is due to new page patrollers. The article on Sarah Coyne was apparently read 6000 times yesterday read  22909 times in the last six days.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and since she was mentioned in passing in media articles about her half-brother who will shortly become Canada's new Prime Minister, people are looking her up. It probably didn't help that at least one major Canadian media outlet incorrectly referred to her mother as "Pierre Trudeau's second wife." Just to clarify, this is not justification for an article, just other reasons for the page hits. Meters (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not inherited just because one has famous relatives; a person has to actually get over an inclusion rule completely on their own steam. Obviously this happened this week out of a desire to fill out the Trudeau genealogy — but nearly all of this article isn't actually about anything Sarah did, and mostly just reiterates things her father, mother and older half-brother did. And even when she is mentioned within that coverage (which she isn't always), it's as a minor footnote in the action rather than as an actual subject of it. She's obviously a smart young woman, and might very well accomplish something encyclopedically noteworthy after she graduates, but for the nonce she's a private figure who hasn't yet done anything that particularly warrants the attention of an encyclopedia — and accordingly we shouldn't be invading her personal privacy. No prejudice against recreation if she ever actually gets over a Wikipedia inclusion rule for something more than existing. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep "Notability is not inherited", really? I expect Princess Charlotte of Cambridge will continue to have an entry here even if she does no more than poop her diapers. Getting tight about whether to include an article made sense with hard copy records and manual indexing. Computer systems should be able to handle whatever we throw at it. Wasting time agonizing over whether to include articles that could go either way is pointless. Humans should have better things to do. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment My main point above was it does not seem worth the effort to exclude an article that could go either way, given the trivial cost of inclusion. Perhaps an outside agency could be used to give weight either way, in that case Who's Who is a good reference for notability. In the Canadian Who's Who Online, Sarah Coyne is not included at this time. Kid Bugs (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Princess Charlotte’s situation is not analogous with Sarah Coyne’s circumstances. At birth, Charlotte became a royal princess, fourth in line to ascend to the throne of the UK, Canada, etc. That makes Charlotte notable right now. By contrast, Sarah is fourth in line to nothing today - except maybe for a latte at Starbucks. Sarah is simply not notable currently.Radinbc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may be saying that the Princess Charlotte complies with our notability policy, even though she hasn't "done anything", because multiple RS have written about her, in detail. Some people have argued that, for some families, "notability IS inherited".  They argue this for families like the UK royal family, and the USA de-facto royal family in waiting -- the Kennedy family.  Like most contributors, I don't agree with that.  I argued Coyne, like Princess Charlotte, measured up to the GNG.  We should keep the article on Princess Charlotte because she measured up to the GNG.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The situation is reminiscent of articles in the List of children of the Presidents of the United States. Some of them have individual articles, others are covered in articles about their families. Is there enough material for a article about her family? Dimadick (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. She's 24 and she's a student. Remove the famous father, mother and half-brother and she's just like any other 24-year-old student. She may be notable in her own right in the future, but right now, there's nothing.  freshacconci  talk to me  13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – I would be more likely to argue that there is enough for WP:GNG if there were multiple news articles entirely about her such as this one, but passing mentions in articles about other people are insufficient to support an article at this time, in my view. And especially considering she prefers her privacy (per WP:BLP policy it is worth taking this into account). Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Any son or daughter of a Canadian prime minister is ipso facto notable. Sarah Coyne is also the only woman in Canadian history who is both daughter of a prime minister and sister of a prime minister. Bellczar (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is quite simply incorrect. Notability is not inherited. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just on a point of fact: Sarah Coyne is not now, nor was she ever, the child of a Canadian prime minister. She was born after Pierre Trudeau had left office. Radinbc (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is pure sophistry. Bellczar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to closing administrator -- Several individuals who voiced "delete" opinions only explanation was some variation of "she's not notable because she hasn't done anything". These include, ,  , , , .  It is my understanding of the closing administrator's role that they have the authority to discount opinions that are not supported by policy -- like these ones.  As I wrote in my keep the GNG does not require the subjects of BLP articles to have "done anything".  It requires the subjects of those articles to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  These six contributors left the "hasn't done anything" argument after I reminded the nominator of the wording of GNG -- which suggests they belong to the class of AFD respondents who don't feel obliged to read the arguments they don't agree with.  Obviously achieving the wikipedia goal of consensus decision making can't be reached when discussion respondents don't read arguments they don't agree with.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to assume good faith, and not attack other editors simply because they disagree with you. I'm sure your arguments were read, they are apparently just not persuasive to the majority of commenters here. They certainly weren't persuasive from my perspective; I think it's patently obvious that the majority of the sources in the article mention the subject only in passing, and that the one article that might be considered as conferring notability is a one-off soft news story. This doesn't meet the threshold for significant coverage in multiple RS that would make her notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , the wikipedia decision making model is supposed to be consensus based. Sorry, but why don't you recognize that this places an obligation on civil and collegial respondents to explicitly state why they think a counter-argument is "just not persuasive"?  Consensus and compromise can't be reached when respondents don't read what those they think they disagree with have to say.  Consensus and compromise can't be reached when respondents don't respond to what those they think they disagree with have to say.  I dispute I attacked anyone.  Do you think I attacked you in my initial keep?  If so, please check again.  I may respond more fully to this comment on your talk page.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, how many is "multiple"? You wrote: "...the one article that might be considered as conferring notability is a one-off soft news story. This doesn't meet the threshold for significant coverage in multiple RS..."  Multiple, does that include two?  You didn't tell people about the second profile of Sarah Coyne, in the January 2014 issue of Frank magazine --Realm of the Coyne.  You still haven't responded to my point that if other articles each contain one or two passing mentions of Ms Coyne, but those passing mentions are of different aspects of her life, they too can add up to significant coverage.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not particularly interested in replying to further questions from you about this, and I'm under no obligation to explain my !vote beyond the reasons I've already given; it is my assessment that the sources cited in the article are not numerous and not in-depth enough to demonstrate that the subject meets either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. They are mostly passing mentions, and in my judgement they don't meet the standard of significant and in-depth coverage that is required for someone to be notable. That's really all I have to say on the subject, except to note that there's pretty clear evidence (all the delete !votes above) that I'm not the only one who does not see sufficient evidence of notability in either the article or its sources at present. As far as "attacking" other editors, I was referring to your suggestion that the !delete votes "belong to the class of AFD respondents who don't feel obliged to read the arguments they don't agree with." This was un-called for and pretty obviously inaccurate.  It seems clear from the comments here that others did read your comments, but that your arguments are just not as clinching as you seem to think there are. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that my post of Oct 22 arguing for deletion included citations of two relevant guidelines. @Geo Swan may not agree with my interpretation of these guidelines but to suggest that I had not referenced any is incorrect.Radinbc (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you cited WP:BLP1E and WP:NPF. I struck your name. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment A couple of respondents here recommend assuming Ms Coyne would prefer not to be covered in a wikipedia article, and that this assumption should trigger a higher than usual notability criteria for her. Traditionally, we have shown some deference when an individual requests no article, but only when their notability is marginal, when they are right on the cusp.  When individuals are clearly notable, we cover them whether they like it or not.   A few years ago there was a heroic NCIS agent, who had received a very rare substantial cash bonus for some classified accomplishment, who was also a professor at one of the service colleges.  After I started an article about him he wrote to OTRS, and requested his article's deletion.  The OTRS committee member who answered his email complied.  They told me the hero had no actual objection to the article, he just didn't want to be covered.  The OTRS guy and I corresponded for well over a year, as new elements came out that I would have added, if the article hadn't been deleted.  He was polite, but firm.  The hero didn't want an article.   So I initiated a DRV.  After others agreed with me that his desire alone wasn't enough for a speedy deletion the OTRS guy changed his mind.  Nevertheless the DRV was closed with a combined restoration and "administrative" or "procedural" AFD.  The article sailed through the AFD with almost universal keep.  At least that is how I recall events.   The ironic thing is that after the article was restored, the hero, who had retired from government service, and started a consulting firm, became quite diligent at making sure the article's coverage of him was up to date.   Note: Ms Coyne has not written to OTRS to request deletion.  Should we act as if we know what she wants?  Geo Swan (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on your comment You are obfuscating and gaming the system again George. This subject is not notable. The end. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of highly notable people who have a bunch of relatives, who get passing mentions, related that primary highly notable person, who aren't notable themselves. Some other notable people, like, for instance John F. Kennedy, or Queen Elizabeth, have some non-notable relatives, and other relatives who are notable, in their own right. Queen Elizabeth has or had some cousins, who she is close enough to that the sit in the Royal Box, at the race track, but who never open hospitals, or get appointed as the figurehead leader of a charity. When one of Elizabeth's less well-known relatives does get press coverage, for opening a school, or a hospital, or for playing a visible role in a charity, it helps move them into the independently notable sphere.

Several respondents here keep claiming that Sarah is "only known for one thing". I think they mean she is known for being born. I am going to list some other factors. Readers may think these two are notability factors.

I have often disagreed with the contributors from the military wikiproject, over the value of awards. By long-standing tradition, individuals who rise to the rank of General or Admiral, or individuals who win their countries very highest award for bravery, like the Victoria Cross, or Congressional Medal of Honor, are considered notable for that fact alone. I routinely found contributors from the military wikiprojects trying to treat lesser awards as if they conferred zero notability. I strongly disagree with this.

Less than one percent of our BLP articles are about an individual who had their notability established by a single event. Almost all of the individuals who have BLP articles had their notability established by adding up multiple notability factors. In my opinion there should be no question that a bravery medal of less prominence than the Victoria Cross still establishes significant notability.

Anyhow, if there is anyone who still thinks Coyne is an example of a blp1e, I'd appreciate it if they      would explain their challenge to my reasoning here. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly how much of that coverage documents her doing anything that would be expected to get a person into an encyclopedia? Virtually all of it is about her being born, being a four year old who happened to be around when famous people ran into each other, and on and so forth — virtually none of it involves her doing anything noteworthy. And incidentally, Frank falls into the "absolutely positively under exactly no circumstances legitimate sourcing for anything on Wikipedia NEVER EVER NEVER EVER" class of sourcing — so that article counts for half of less than nothing. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I think I have quoted GNG several times in this discussion. I think I have pointed out that there is no requirement that a person "do anything" to be considered notable.  Rather GNG says that what makes someone notable is when RS write about them.  Some people may think I am being difficult by quoting what GNG actually says, when many respondents here seem to want to act like the guideline says something else.  If there was a overwhelming consensus to ignore what GNG actually says, and to not consider anyone notable, unless they had actually "done something", I'd (1) go along; (2) urge all those insistent people to take steps to begin to bring the guideline into line with what they seem to think is established practice.   But, if there were an overwhelming consensus to ignore this part of GNG, wouldn't there be a long discussion in a more general fora than an AFD, where the wider community discussed this?  Geo Swan (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This continued tactic of throwing everything at the wall in the hope that something sticks, while demanding that other editors challenge the claims is starting to look less and less like reasoned advocacy. Are we supposed to accept that because someone is one of thousands who have attended a private school such as UTC that this is a notability factor? Are we expected to agree that a eulogy always includes ‘a list of the deceased’s surviving relatives?’ @Geo Swan better hope not because even the eulogy he references doesn’t do that.  There is no such list in the Justin Trudeau eulogy for his father, so Sarah Coyne’s presence or absence on such a list is moot.  It’s not entirely clear that something that didn’t happen constitutes an event, anyway.  Frank magazine is trotted out as a reliable source.  There is no way that Frank would pass the WP:RS test. As noted in the Wikipedia entry for Frank, the publication (in all its various guises over the years) has been a scandal sheet – perhaps most noted for running a “satirical” advertisement in 1991 inviting readers to “deflower Caroline Mulroney,” the daughter of the then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.  Enough, already. Radinbc (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification please. In this edit I tried to offer a counter-argument to those who claimed Sarah Coyne should be characterized as a blp1e, by suggesting a dozen or so individual events.  Thanks for voicing your concerns about some of them.  Could you please clarify whether your position is that you still think she is best characterized as a blp1e?  Thanks  Geo Swan (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article itself makes no assertion of notability, except for the notability of those around her. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - there seemed to be some confusion about my above !vote. Searches revealed that this person did not meet either WP:BIO or WP:GNG, indeed, since this article did not even meet the lower standard of A7, since no notability was asserted in the article, it most likely should have been speedily deleted.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:41, 29 October 2015 (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.