Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Jenna Wilson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to Elon Musk#Relationships and children. Most participants favored deleting or redirecting the article (primarily the latter), on the basis that while there is news coverage about her, it is entirely driven by her relationship with her father. The redirect arguments of DanielRigal ("She was dragged into the limelight") and Speederzzz ("the only famous thing she has done is be trans ... and criticize her dad") were typical and cited by some others. Regardless of whether the exact criteria of WP:BLP1E are satisfied, there is no obligation to have an article about someone who is in news coverage for a narrow reason; if appropriate, the dispute can be covered in the article about her father. RL0919 (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Jenna Wilson

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Vivian Jenna Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unsure she is notable in her own right, she is only notable because of who her father is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
She’s had significant coverage of her own, particularly for criticizing her father. We have articles for things far less notable than that. Snokalok (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was initially concerned that she is only known for one event, but the available references cover a span of years. The WP:NOTINHERITED issue is spurious, since the notability claim is not based upon the mere fact of being related to a notable person. We don't delete biographies just because a person is less famous than the very famous person they're associated with. Keeping this article is fundamentally sensible for the same reason that we have articles on Sean Lennon, Moon Zappa, etc., etc. XOR'easter (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean Lennon is a noted musician in his own right, and Moon Zappa was a TV actress and an MTV VJ, back when MTV actually had something to do with music. Did they each get a boost because of their more famous father? I would think so but they are both notable in their own regard, not the same thing as what we see here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria is very clear about this. "person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A ". The article only ever has relevance to drama with her father, and it makes more sense for this to be combined into Elon Musk. Vangaurden (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon_Musk#Relationships_and_children as long as the only famous thing she has done is be trans (not special) and criticize her dad. The only reasons sources even write about her every so often is if her dad repeats what he has said before. If someone keeps talking about one thing that happened in the past, does it invalidate WP:BLP1E? In the end her transition and the reaction to it can be classified as one event drawn out over 2 years.
I say this knowing people argue for WP:GNG, but I keep in mind:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article."
(Italics added for emphasis)
This article provides no information that would be valuable independent of the section on Elon's page, this is basically an expanded explanation of the second paragraph of Elon_Musk#Relationships_and_children. I think that if a page would not be worth reading without the context of another article, it should not be a standalone article and instead be part of the main article.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 15:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the best argument for merging/redirecting yet, however there is the issue of the Musk article being 10,500 words, and therefore content should realistically be further divided or trimmed, rather than more content included into it. I also don't believe the section content in question justifies the added length and instead should be better summarised with the expanded version in this article instead per summary style of a relevant child article (in this case Wilson). Therefore I believe there is more of an argument for trimming the referenced section, with this article being a link at the top of the section for further info, rather than merging into. CNC (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that subsection on Elon Musk is getting ungainly. QRep2020 (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that her article and what she and he have said in the larger "conversation" reduce to the subject of her transition. It's also about her childhood, his public recounts of events that she denies, her repudiations of his morbid characterization of the process of transitioning in general, etc. QRep2020 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the information about her youth (except for maybe the absent father part and her school) are about her gender and sexuality and her fathers reaction to it. Maybe it is because that is how I experience my transition, but I see those aspects as integral to transitioning. All of the other information are either random personal facts scraped from the internet (her study, how she was conceived) or her criticism of her dad. So while a bit brief, I don't feel like I unfairly characterized the article's content.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 18:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG as being the object of multiple examples of substantial published coverage in presumably reliably sources. We are not here to discuss each nomination subjectively as whether they should be in an encyclopedia, we are here to determine whether a given subject meets objective standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. This article does. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO, which she cannot pass due to failing GNG. ——Serial Number 54129 17:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or, failing that, Redirect. Speederzzz pretty eloquently puts the argument here, as does DanielRigal with regards to being sensitive to an individual. They are only the focus of attention because of her dad; that it keeps coming up doesn't make it less of a case of NOTINHERITED and BLP1E. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect for now per general WP:N. I'd be happy to rediscuss the page's inclusion in the future in the event that the subject evolves.
    — Urro[talk][edits] ⋮ 18:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant coverage in reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is sufficient sourcing on her to pass GNG. Someone can be mainly notable due to their relationship with someone else. WP:NOTINHERITED means that being related to a notable person doesn't inherently give you notability, but it's not a prohibition on having pages for people who are mainly known due to their association with someone else, so long as there are sufficient sources to support an independent article. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk She is not notable in her own right. I would also support a delete of the article if it was the consensus. Go4thProsper (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge to Elon Musk, although perhaps Family of Elon Musk should be converted from a redirect-to-DAB to a prose-y list. Either way, as Speederzzz says, passing GNG is not a guarantee of an article, and this is particularly true for a living person whose notability arises from their association with another living person. Given the attention she's already received, Ms. Musk Wilson may well earn freestanding notability in the near future. But it is neither fair to her nor beneficial to our readers to have an article about a 20-year-old that is solely about her criticism of her father. The fact that multiple BLPvios persist in the article ({{not verified}}—a template that should never appear in a BLP—right in the lede; BLPNAME violations regarding her siblings; including dubious claims by Musk without immediate rebuttal) despite all of the attention coming from this AfD, should undercut any argument that maintaining this as a separate article does no harm. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An expanded Family of Elon Musk would be much better if necessary; redirecting someone's name to an article on someone they very much dislike feels wrong, even if not strictly against policy. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Musk family was deleted via AfD last month. Also the subject is Wilson, not "Ms. Musk". CNC (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She's still in his family biologically, even though she no longer goes by that last name. That page was also not particularly good, and I don't think that AfD consensus would be repeated should there be a better page created with biographical information on Vivian Wilson merged there, as well as more information on Elon's other non-notable family members (such as Errol). But again I support keeping this article; that option is secondary. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My second point was directed @Tamzin, not to your point re: "Ms. Musk". I'm otherwise not convinced we know what is "fair" to Wilson, given she agreed to an interview with NBC and seems happy to shitpost about her estranged father. I don't mean the initial criticisms and accusations, I'm referring to public shitposting before and after. CNC (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A list article about Elon Musk's family, serving as a sub-article split off from Musk's article, would be distinct from an article that treats the Musk family as a notable entity. And yes, my mistake of course regarding surname. Talking about Musk's family got it jumbled in my head. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. NOPAGE and BLP1E state even notable topics may be better covered in the context of a parent article rather than as a standalone. Everything in this bio is derived from her relationship with her father, not from any recognition she has gained in her own right. She is also not an "LGBT advocate" just by virtue of "being trans and talking about it"... JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at minimum redirect: Per the arguments above which I found best summarized by DanielRegal, Speederzzz, Tamzin, and JoelleJay. Wilson's sole claim to notability is her relation to her dad. FFS the article is as comprehensive as it can be considering the sources and all we can muster is 1) an early life section that has trivia and a single vaguely notable fact: she changed her surname to avoid association with her dad and 2) a section devoted to the fact her dad lied about her on a podcast and she tweeted calling him on it and his other behavior. This entire article could be 2 sentences: Musk has an estranged transgender daughter who transitioned at 16 years old and changed her surname to avoid association with him. He has publicly criticized her transition and blamed it on "neo-marxism", he appeared on a podcast in July 2024 with Jordan Peterson and made many statements she publicly criticized as untrue. Remove Musk and the non-notable fact she's trans and what's her claim to notability? At 18 years old she changed her surname to avoid association with her dad and at 20 he said things about her on a podcast which she said were bullshit on twitter...Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, I'm inclined to support privacy for this individual. When a good chunk of the information in the article comes from an interview her father did it shows what she is actually notable for. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect to Musk - given the statements that Musk has made about her, redirecting her article to his is Just Wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk per others, and merge only the details about her reaction to the comments made by Musk. I would recommend that anyone interested in creating a 'Family of Elon Musk' article postpone it until this AfD has been resolved, as there may be additional debate on whether Wilson should be considered part of Musk's family. Svampesky (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Although the subject satisfies WP:GNG and does not fall under WP:NOTINHERITED ("Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship"), this article should still not be made for reasons of WP:BLP policy. First, Wilson arguably falls under WP:BLP1E, the "one event" in this case being repeatedly and publicly maligned by Elon in various high-profile venues since 2022. The fact of it being "repeated" may seem to imply that Wilson was obviously not involved in just "one" event, but, as Speederzzz argues above, the underlying event which is the source of all the later reactions and coverage is the mere fact of Wilson being queer and trans, which is not in itself significant. Second, Wilson is not a public figure. As the NBC interview with Wilson mentions, "Wilson has never granted an interview before and has largely stayed out of public view," but "she could no longer remain silent after [Elon's] comments Monday." In other words, Wilson felt forced to speak to the media, and otherwise has tried to keep a low profile. For this reason, there should not be an independent article about Wilson, on the basis of the presumption of privacy. Most of the important information about Wilson is already included in Elon_Musk#Relationships_and_children, so simply redirecting there should be a decent solution. Angegane (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk#Relationships and children. There have been several arguments to the effect that it "doesn't matter what her 'coverage' is about" as long as there's significant coverage. This is incorrect. The guideline is very clear that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." The secondary sources all discuss Vivian Jenna Wilson in the context of her relationship with Elon Musk, so it's most reasonable to cover this in the relevant section of that article. hinnk (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This person has given one press interview and made a series of social media posts that got a news spike, and only brief/passing mentions before that. Note that redirecting does not mean Wikipedia erases all traces of Wilson: her existence and views can be mentioned in other articles, as appropriate. There is no need to make a devoted stand-alone article to a person thus far known only for speaking out against her estranged father. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the points made above. I don’t accept the idea that we’re forced to have a standalone article for everyone who Elon Musk insults simply because they respond to the insults and the news media covers it. WP:N makes it clear that we have the editorial discretion to instead address it in Musk’s article or elsewhere, which in the case of a young person being in the news for her father’s comments (and her response) seems far more appropriate. A standalone BLP would, by necessity given the available sources, essentially reduce her life to this back-and-forth with Musk, which would do a disservice to both our readers and the article subject. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Elon Musk article. There's very little to write about her, frankly. She dislikes her father and criticizes him on social media. The rest of the article is puffed up with details on topics that don't make her notable (being trans and all the stuff about her early life isn't noteworthy). Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect no need for a standalone article per the points already made above. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . She had even been receiving significant coverage even before this, but she was choosing to be non-public person and thus it would have been inappropriate to have an article on her. Now that she is being quite public, it is time that there is an article, so long as it does not get too long and violate WP:DUE.
  • It is perfectly normal for family members of famous people, whose fame comes from their relation to or conflicts with a more famous relative, to have articles. What matters is their level of fame, not how they got it. Vivian has "a several paragraph article"'s worth of fame at present, and there's certainly more than enough content of interest to fill that. It's also worth noting that having this article allows for keeping the (already incredibly long) Elon Musk article shorter. So my vote is a strong support for keeping this article. -- Rei (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk: Fails notablity. Can be redirected to Elon Musk. Charliehdb (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The delete/redirect votes here aren't based in policy and instead seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please actually read WP:NOTINHERIT and you'll see that some of the delete votes citing it above are exactly what it is telling you to avoid in deletion discussions. Notability is not automatically inherited (e.g. if they don't meet GNG and their only claim is being related to someone), but anyone who meets the applicable notability guidelines is notable. End of story. It doesn't matter what the coverage is about or if it only exists because she is related to Musk. Is the first lady not notable because she has only received coverage for being the president's wife? In this case, Wilson obviously meets GNG and thus is notable (full story in the NYT, CNN, People, BBC, AP, etc.). C F A 💬 14:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting the baseline criteria of WP:GNG is not a guarantee of a stand alone article: Per WP:GNG (a guideline, not a policy): "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article. We are now having that in-depth discussion. Actual policy considerations include WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTWHOSWHO. Should Baron Trump have his own article? All of Musk's other kids? Should the children of every celebrity whose names, birthdates, and interests been mentioned in reliable sources be automatically granted their own article? "X is the baby daughter of Y. She likes the color blue and singing songs." Wow, what a fascinating encyclopedia article! Before her public spat with daddy, Vivian Wilson was just one of several children of Musk. A pseudobiography attesting to her existence and repeating her spat can be best summarized in existing articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have the other kids been the subject of a scheduled interview by a major publication? Has Baron? She is a High-Profile person, albeit it happened quicker than usual because Musk set the ground work by speaking ill of her. QRep2020 (talk) 13:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and I'd maybe support a merge to Family of Elon Musk, but that was deleted last month. BLP1E does not apply here because in-depth coverage about her has been happening for more than two years. Here's a profile from the SCMP published in September 2022, here's one from June 2022, here's another one from June 2022, then she had the major interview last month. There is nothing wrong with an independent article in cases like this because it's what the reader wants. Readers don't know about all our strange wikilawyer arguments that happen in the background. They're just looking for a standard Wikipedia biography on the subject, and a separate page gives them that. C F A 💬 14:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is not BLP1E, and to prove this you show us different coverage of the same event some time ago. I do not consider 2 different instances of criticizing Elon Musk as two different events. That is the only notable thing about her (and her criticism is only notable because she is the child of Elon Musk).
If a reader is really that interested in the unimportant parts of her life they can read one of those articles you link. If readers are looking for a standard Wikipedia biography, they won't find it here. This page is simply some trivial information on her birth followed by a long list of her criticisms towards her dad.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 16:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, BLP1E certainly does not apply here. In order for BLP1E to apply, all three conditions listed have to be met. Regardless if you consider it one event or not, criteria #2 (The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual does not apply here. Please see WP:LOWPROFILE for an explanation: A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. She has chosen to do a high-profile interview because she wanted to share her story/spread awareness/etc. She chose to seek the attention in the news over the past few weeks; the news didn't decide to cover it without her intervention. In fact, one of the listed criteria for being a "high-profile" individual and not meeting BLP1E is specifically this situation: High-profile: Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator. Need not be a "household name", simply self-promotional. May ostensibly represent an employer or other group, but is clearly self-representing as well. C F A 💬 17:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. QRep2020 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, this is a classic case of WP:BLP1E, where the "event" is a protracted public dispute with her estranged father. The only significant coverage about her relates to that one event. She is not notable in her own right, any more than a hypothetical first spouse who was not notable before their spouse's election and kept a low public profile afterwards would be notable in their own right. I'd be inclined not to redirect to Elon's article, though as Elli notes there are no policy-based reasons not to do so, it just feels wrong given the circumstances. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per CNC and Gobonobo above, there is multiple sustained coverage about her for years about her transition, name change and estrangement, which passes WP:SIGCOV, so it's not just a 1-event case. Raladic (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Elon Musk#Relationships and children. Nothing establishes that she is notable apart from who her father is. Many thousands of people criticize Musk every day, some of whom are possibly even Trans and/or have been interviewed once by a journalist. Transitioning and/or being interviewed once for criticizing Musk doesn't make someone notable and that's all we have apart from her relationship to him. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 14:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Can we please stop having endless discussions about the interpretation of policy, and let the closer decide what policy applies, and says, the closer will have to try and read all of this. ? Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how deletion discussions work... The closer isn't supposed to close based on their interpretation of policy — that would be a supervote. They're supposed to interpret consensus, which involves discussion. C F A 💬 17:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a vote, arguments have to be policy based. And there is no point arguing someone is wrong, the close will look at what is said, and decide what is applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to a certain extent, it is a vote. Consensus is weighted discussion. You can't just say "stop discussing" when that's exactly the point of a deletion discussion. C F A 💬 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that someone is "wrong", only that interpretation of policy is inaccurate, which is a totally valid argument, as well as the usual basis of most deletion discussions in fact. I'm struggling to understand the issue here. CNC (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As referenced in this essay on deletion policy, refutation and counter-arguments are highly recommended in such discussions and should be strongly encouraged. As relevant, CFA's arguments aren't a repetition of previous arguments. CNC (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's also getting circular, the same points being argued over and over again, just like is happening now. If your argument is a good one, it does not need stateing 15 times, once will, be enough. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely not true. Nobody has refuted the augment of BLP1E based on the required conditions as well as LOWPROFILE. This counter-argument is not repetition when the refutation is completely different. CNC (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivian_Jenna_Wilson&oldid=1238615930"