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 merge to Andy Murray. Many of the keep !votes are not based on policy. Discounting those, there is not much of an argument for keeping the article. The decision will be to merge since there is more support to merge than to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sears[edit]

Kim Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log) Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated as her notability seems to stem purely from being Andy Murray's Girlfriend. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have campaigned once before and I am going to campaign again to keep this page on Wikipedia. Check your talk page. Randomer789 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should probably cite your reasons for keep here because as it stands there is nothing in your rationale that supports keep, other than you would like it to be kept. I42 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She may well have come to prominence because of her association with Andy Murray but there are articles such as this which feature her independently. I42 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly the point I42. As she becomes more famous she will did things for herself that make her notable, and it is a waste of time to delete the article and make it again. Randomer789 (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we can't have articles for people that MIGHT become famous, she needs to be notable now for the article to pass WP:Bio, the above article doesn't demonstrate her notability anymore then Page Three would Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Media coverage confirms notability. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep when I first came upon this page, I thought this page was probably WP:NOTINHERITED, but I had a poke around, and came up with loads of sources about her, not Murray. The ones which I thought most significant are the five used for references. These numerous sources are why I think the subject is notable. It doesn't matter where her notability came from, as long as she is notable (is every mention of her was in passing, while the subject of the source was Murray, then I would vote delete, but they aren't). Passes WP:NN - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Andy Murray. Article is short enough that a separate page for his girlfriend is not necessary. 174.153.97.210 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — 174.153.97.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep She is notable enough and will probably continue to become even more so. TV commentators constantly reference her and her father during matches as well. So the page may prove useful.Parkerparked (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with Andy Murray. Notability is not temporary, nor inherited, and her media coverage stems solely from the man she dates --Saalstin (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not one of those articles with the trivial coverage of her would have been written if she wasn't dating Murray. Even this article we are discussing is barely about her. It contains 5 sentences. 3 of the 5 mention Murray. 1 of the 5 talks about her father, only 1 doesn't mention someone more notable than she is. Even the sentence about her going to school worked in a mention of Murray. For those advocating keep, I ask one question: What has she actually done of note? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's an article which starts off mainly about her. It doesn't matter if the sources only exist because she is Murray's girlfriend, as long as they exist, thanks to the large number of sources about her (not Murray), she is notable. WP:ITSA only applies when the subject is not notable, but someone the subject is related to is, in this case the subject is notable per WP:BIO. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Notability isn;t there to me. Again I ask, what has she done, seperate from sleeping with Murray, that makes her notable? I'm willing to be that if Murray dropped dead tomorrow, in 2 weeks, only her family would remember her name. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does she have to have done something to be notable? Well according to WP:BIO she doesn't have to have. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I'll rephrase in light of the pedantic reading of my point. What notability has she achieved on her own, without Murray? Can you show me a reliable source from before the time she started dating Murray? Can you show me a reliable source covering her without mentioning Murray? Or is every bit of her "notability" tied to the fact that she is sleeping with him? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No. But this doesn't matter, since I can find sources which have her as the subject (not Murray). Just because it's mentioned that in every source that she is Murray's girlfriend doesn't make her non-notable. It would be like saying that the Queen of England is non notable because, "can you find any sources which don't mention that she is the Queen? Or is every bit of her 'notability' tied to the fact that she is the queen?" this is clearly crooked logic. Anyway, can you find any sources which explicitly say she is sleeping with him? If not, she's clearly notable for something else. ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • But being the monarch of a soveriegn nation IS inherently notable. Being the current lay of the #3 tennis player is not. Her notability stems from being "friends" with someone notable. What's next? Articles about every member of some two-bit rappers "posse"? This is surreal to me. You are arguing to keep someone who has done nothing, accomplished noting and struggles to have a notable identity without her boyfriend, yet there are current AfD's for people like Stephen Trujillo, who has spent his life in service to his country and performed far above the call of duty, with actual accomplishments of his own and I don't see you there trying save that article. It's pop culture nonsense like this that make Paris Hilton a household name and relegate the Lenny Skutnik's of the world to being a footnote in history. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't much like it either, but she is getting independent coverage and thus has independent notability according to WP guidelines. I42 (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that notability independent? Or is it merely a by-product of her association with someone notable.? I'm fighting the exact opposite battle in the AfD for Lisa Niemi. She is an actress, director and producer in her own right, but since much of her work is with her more famous husband (Patrick Swayze), some want to make her a footnote in his article. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's not because of her association with Murray, but I am saying that it doesn't matter if it is. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with a redirect to Andy Murray. A 2 paragraph article wouldn't make the Andy Murray article all that much longer than it is already. 68.244.33.210 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — 68.244.33.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Kingpin,I wonder how often what gets labelled as a "SPA" is an editor who just forgot to sign in. I recently ran into this on another article where the editor didn't even realize he was posting under both his IP and registered account. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That did occur to me, but twice in one AfD seemed funny, even if they are in disagreement with each other, and it seems unfair to go badgering them, as they may want to keep their IP addresses' private. Besides which, it's not like the tag does any harm, I'll happily remove them if anyone requests - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason I mention it (aside from my recent encounter with an editor I mentioned), was that I looked at the editors other contribution, done very a few minutes before his/her vote here and it was a spelling correction in a fairly mundane article totally unrelated to anything even remotely connected to this article. That's why I immediately considered that it might be a person who simply forgot to log in or whose cookie had expired. The first one is a toss up, but given it only had one edit, I can see why you'd tag it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A lot of articles on the internet are talking about her, mentioning Murray but the topics are not about what Murray has done. SuperTeacher123 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, while there are indeed sources about her, she simply hasn't done anything notable beyond being Andy Murray's girlfriend. There's nothing to say in the article that wouldn't better be said as a paragraph in Andy Murray. To me, this is a classic case of "notability is not inherited" . ~ mazca ^talk 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes you think that a person must have done something to be notable/pass WP:BIO? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  An encyclopedia article isn't a prize for meeting an arbitrary standard of coverage. It is a means of portraying information to a reader; if there is no useful information to portray beyond that which would be best covered in the context of someone else, then an independent article is not the way to go. ~ mazca ^talk 09:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I can only agree with the claim that notability is not inherited in this case, and disagree that there is enough coverage for Ms Sears to qualify on her own. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge All of the sources cited above are connected with Andy Murray. The titles of the articles are The girl who tamed Andy Murray's temper and turned him into a winner, Andy Murray's girl Kim Sears keeps cool at Wimbledon, Hair-raising: Andy Murray's girlfriend and the Farrah Fawcett look, etc. None of the articles discuss Kim Sears independently of Andy Murray, so this article should be merged. Cunard (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2009 (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.