Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Kerry (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. Consensus seems to be that sufficient sourcing exists for this person to be independently notable. Yunshui 雲 水 09:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Vanessa Kerry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is a lack of sources sufficient for writing a biographical article about this person -- and for establishing notability. Much of the article is unsourced and likely unsourceable. Previous AfD resulted in merge to John Kerry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure if this is simply a case of WP:NOTNEWS, but she has gotten the following on her:
 * http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/04/09/sen-john-kerry-now-a-grandfather/
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/fashion/weddings/11KERRY.html
 * http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/feb/05/uselections2004.usa3
 * http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/27/a-peace-corps-for-doctors-solving-shortages-of-medical-workers-abroad/
 * http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/18/161381770/a-peace-corps-for-doctors-built-by-a-senators-daughter
 * Just felt I should mention it. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to John Kerry, just like last time. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as is I'm personally outraged at this AfD. Lets be clear, first of all the article have a plethora of good references and therefore should be kept as is, just because the former AfD went that way doesn't mean that this AfD should be the same. Plus, since when did Wikipedia began merging Start class articles?--Mishae (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think being "start" class has much to do with notability. Some start-class articles are notable, others are not. As for this article, I'm personally on the fence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, for people who didn't read the article talkpage before posting it for deletion, I will strongly advice to do so before posting any future AfDs of this sort: Talk:Vanessa Kerry. And for the nominator who says that "Previous AfD resulted in merge to John Kerry", read the talkpage, it clearly says Keep!--Mishae (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Read this. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you miss understood me. What I said is that I never seen Start articles being merged. Stubs, plenty of times. Plus, I read it, nothing new. Have you read this?--Mishae (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As a side note I found this sources as well:
 * Redirect to John Kerry per lack of independent notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Lack of independent notability? Where do see it? I just added three sources that were mentioned above, bringing the total to 8. Exceeds WP:GNG, in my opinion.--Mishae (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Baltimore Sun
 * CNN
 * C-SPAN
 * Six more videos
 * PLOS--Mishae (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a note Mishae: primary sources (interviews, self-written pieces, videos, etc.) don't add to notability. What you need is reliable third-party sources (not written by those closely affiliated with subject). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, The Baltimore Sun link and PLOS are not self published sources, so they are quite reliable. Also, as of now the article have at least 9 reliable sources. Should be enough for a pass, don't you all think? CNN and C-SPAN videos are good external links, though (at least C-SPAN is).--Mishae (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that pieces that Vanessa herself writes are counted are primary sources. Primary sources aren't necessarily bad, but secondary sources are generally preferred when available. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Baltimore Sun article is not about her, she's just quoted in it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added another New York Times reference to the article just now.  Whether or not in real life the real reason for her notability is "inherited", she is in fact notable in real life.  It is not a matter of someone creating a Wikipedia article for someone merely related to a Wikipedia-notable person; she has independent coverage in real life, meets wp:GNG.  Note:  This relates to ongoing AFD about her husband, who is Brian Vala Nahed, where I voted "Redirect" to here, where it seems consensus is "Too soon".  One article about her with redirect from husband's name seems about right. -- do  ncr  am  00:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That NY Times "article" is the wedding announcement that was already being used as a source. So I'm afraid you haven't done anything to establish her notability here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there is too much to merge into an article on John Kerry, at this point. It would beg the question, shouldn't this be split out, if material on Brian Vala Nahed and Vanessa Kerry were overloaded into the John Kerry article.  I submit that a separate article on Vanessa Kerry seems appropriate. -- do  ncr  am  17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:AFD is not the place to moralise over whether someone deserves to have an article solely by virtue of their own accomplishments - which is what a profound misinterpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED requires (and WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY anyway).  A Wikipedia article is not a prize awarded to deserving individuals.  She clearly meets WP:GNG.  Some, maybe even most of that coverage comes from the important fact she's related to John Kerry (and her other relatives), . Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensively referenced in sources about her and her work and giving only an off-hand mention to her father. Much as it may irk some people, it actually is possible to be independently notable, even if part of that notability was helped helped by having a famous parent. Will we redirect George W. Bush to George H. W. Bush? --GRuban (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm still neutral on this AfD, just note that WP:WAX ("What about X?") is an argument to avoid in discussions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Er ... no. Let's see what WP:WAX actually says. "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. ... Plenty of articles exist that probably should not." Are you really trying to say that George W Bush exists but probably should not? If not, then I'm afraid your abbreviation isn't such a good counterargument. You'll have to use your own words. (Also, of course, there's this, from that very link: "this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged" ... :-)) --GRuban (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In case this was directed at me, no I most certainly wasn't saying that George W. Bush shouldn't have a stand alone article. I was stating that I was neutral about whether Vanessa Kerry's article should be kept or not. I was saying that, indeed, the fact that certain articles do or do not exist cannot be used to solely determine if a particular article should be kept. As for "simply referring" to essays, that would be more like someone just going "see WP:WAX". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to John Kerry. AtheistIranian (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I count at least three secondary reliable sources on this person, linked in the article. Passes WP:GNG.-- cyclopia speak! 10:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing the fact that there are reliable sources available on John Kerry's children and other relatives, but, in my opinion, it should all be merged into John Kerry's, as it was previously decided: Articles for deletion/Vanessa Kerry. Had it not been for her father, no one would have heard of her (as it's the case with her colleague and co-founder of the charity Seed Global Health). The article itself is flawed (for example, the opening paragraph talks about her marriage, but since her fame is not related to the man whom she married, it should not be included in the opening paragraph. The author of the article then decides to mention her marriage once again in the main article). AtheistIranian (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * John Kerry and Vanessa Kerry are two different people. There is specific coverage on the second person. There is no reason to clump together under the fathers' article. Thanks for pointing the flaws in the article, but you and all of us can edit them and fix them, they are no reason for a delete/merge decision (see deletion policy). -- cyclopia speak! 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * From a review of the sources listed in the article at this time it does not appear that the subject has received substantial coverage as the subject. Most of the content is either tangential to an article about her father or is about Seed Global Health. That being said the content can be bifurcated between John Kerry and Seed Global Health and the article name redirected to John Kerry.-- Pink Bull  16:24, 21 May 2014 (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.