Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pippa Middleton

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. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Middleton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Notability is not established independent of her sister, Kate Middleton. References provided tend to focus on Kate, while offering peripheral mentions of the subject of this article. If the subject was not related to the future wife of Prince William, the subject of this article would not merit coverage. See WP:NOTINHERITED Cind.amuse 20:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst WP:NOTINHERITED is certainly a concern, this is an article in a national newspaper about her that does not mention her sister. Therefore, whilst she may well have become as prominent as she has because of her sister, she appears to have some independent notability of her own. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't' seem to have done anything of note really and full of trivia about who she's dating or about her mother and sister. I suppose her future maid of honour role might be notable but then that's again related to her sister and would still mean she's only notable for one thing and therefore not worthy of an article. One article in a national newspaper about trivial things she's up to doesn't make her worthy of an article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pippa Middleton's career to date clearly isn't notable (which is equally true of that of her sister Kate), but per Wikipedia:Notability she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "Significant coverage" means addressing the subject directly in detail, "more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "Pippa Middleton" (with quotation marks) gives 72,000 google hits, and the number is fast rising. According to this story she is now expected to become a Lady in Waiting. She will soon be easily recognized by the majority of the British people, if she isn't already, and that in itself is a form of notability. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: According to this, the Pippa Middleton page was viewed 23,400 times on 15 February, which I find fairly impressive. Clearly, there is a demand for it. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that Pippa hasn't done anything notable other than be the sister of a more famous woman, but the GNG trumps all subordinate notability criteria. It's plain that she passes it, whatever anyone might think of the source of her fame. Ravenswing 10:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although notability is not inherited, in this case, coverage is inherited. Like it or not, being the sister of the bride-to-be of the second in line to throne is of sufficient interest to generate significant coverage about he in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close as WP:SNOW. The amount of coverage here clearly satisfies WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2011 (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.