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 Katie Holmes. Sandstein 21:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suri Cruise

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No more notability now than when the AfD decision several years ago was to redirect to her mother's article. A six year old has no inherent notability and there is nothing that has changed since the initial AfD. My attempts at returning the article to a redirect were reverted as "vandalism". Twice, despite my attempt at discussion of the subject. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Katie Holmes. While Suri is a cutie-pie, she is not independently notable outside of her parents and 99.9% of the news articles about her talk about her in relation to her famous parents. She's just one of those kids that is only famous for having famous parents and has no true notability of her own.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

A google news search for "suri cruise -tom -kate -katie" to exclude her parents still returns 26 hits, an order of magnitude more than the 2 hits for fashion model Ambre Anderson, whose notability is not in dispute. We wouldn't consider U.S. vice president Joe Biden to be nonnotable just because most of his news mentions also mention the president. Warren Dew (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great analogy. Joe Biden was a U.S. senator (qualifying as notable under WP:POLITICIAN) when Obama was 11 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why redirect to Katie's article and not Tom's? That doesn't seem right. Is the mother somehow a more relevant parent than the father? I don't agree with that. hmwith☮ 20:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the previous AfD, and unlike most other celebrity babies, Suri Cruise has grown into a fashion icon in her own right. Her fashion choices are frequently discussed in the style and parenting sections of news sources, and there are at least two high traffic third party blogs dedicated to following her.

For reference, the previous AfD was opened on 20 April 2006, when Suri Cruise was only 2 days old, and closed on 28 April 2006. Her birth had been the subject of a large amount of media coverage, but at only a few days old, she had not then had time to do anything independently notable. The result of that discussion, which had approximately equal numbers of keep and delete votes, was to keep the page as a redirect and merge the information on the page into the page for her mother. However, she has since had six years to become notable. Eventually the administrator who had protected the redirect unprotected it so that an article could be created in December 2011.

Suri Cruise's current Google search stats compare favorably to those of Ambre Anderson, whose notability does not seem to be in dispute (I chose her because she was the first entry in the first list of fashion people I could find on Wikipedia and because she, like Suri, is probably the only notable person with her name):

Ambre Anderson google search: 9,300,000 results (0.28 seconds)

google image search: About 165,000 results (0.34 seconds)

google news search: 2 results (0.16 seconds)

Suri Cruise google search: About 11,900,000 results (0.21 seconds)

google image search: About 13,900,000 results (0.30 seconds)

google news search: About 134 results (0.19 seconds)

Since this comparison is between people famous for fashion, the image search is particularly notable, where Suri Cruise has 80 times as many hits as a typical notable fashion model. In addition, a large majority of the images clearly feature Suri, and do not include the faces of either of her parents, demonstrating that her notability is now independent of that of her parents. Warren Dew (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only thing is that google hits and results don't really count towards notability. You'd have to show that there were multiple articles from independent sources talking about Suri as a person and fashion icon independent of her parents. Of course there's going to always be a mention, but most of the articles I've ever read about her has always been in relation to her parents.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Response Well, it's easy to check out some of the 13 million image hits and see that 90% of them are focused on Suri, not on her parents. Alternatively, check out some of these sites and articles. Most don't mention her parents at all, and those that do mention them only in the context of their being her parents, not of her being their child:

http://suricruisefashion.blogspot.com/

http://surisburnbook.tumblr.com/

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2012-02/23/c_131425949.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB7VfMrvv0g

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/suri-cruise-becomes-a-style-icon-398464

http://www.stockportfashion.com/381_2011/suri-cruise-fashion-icon-in-the-making

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/happy-5th-birthday-suri-cruise-2011184

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1384107/GLAMOURs-Best-Dressed-Women-2011-Suri-Cruise-barely-nappies.html

http://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/fashion/celebrity-fashion/2011/04/glamour-best-dressed-women-2011

The last two document that Suri Cruise placed 21st in Glamour magazine's 2011 list of best dressed women, ahead of Keira Knightley, Jessica Alba, Kim Kardashian, Miley Cyrus, Eva Longoria, and Beyonce Knowles, among others. I hope no one is arguing that their articles should be deleted, yet Suri is arguably more notable than they are in the fashion world. Warren Dew (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that Suri doesn't fall under WP:ENTERTAINER, so the cult fanbase part of that listing doesn't really apply to her. She ends up falling under the general notability guidelines for WP:BIO and being listed for a best dressed listing might only qualify as one event. (WP:ONEEVENT) The thing is, the same things were being said about Madonna's Lourdes, with her being listed as a fashion icon for a short period of time and Lourdes really isn't notable outside of her famous mother and I'm not entirely certain that Suri is notable enough in fashion to warrant an article. Can you find more articles that focus solely on Suri that are from reliable and independent sources that talk about her in ways that don't mention the Glamour magazine mention? Hits from fan pages and non-reliable sites don't really count towards notability, unforunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I can't say much with respect to Madonna's Lourdes, whom I had never heard of until now - I don't actually follow popular culture - but I do note that a Google news search on "'lourdes leon' -madonna" to exclude the French city and her mother's name provides no English language hits at all, and the handful of foreign language hits slip through only because "Madonna" is spelled differently in those languages. Suri, in contrast, has far more current news coverage free of her parents' names - more than Ambre Anderson, as noted above, who is a notable fashion model. If your concern is that Suri Cruise's popularity is only a short term thing, I can assure you that's not the case - she has been touted as a fashion icon since she was a year old and her popularity has only grown since, for her entire life. She has also had a substantial effect on children's fashions. For example, when she first wore high heels at the age of 3, there were lots of articles about how shocking and medically unhealthy that was, and virtually no relevant shopping results (I was looking for high heels for my toddler at the time). Her wearing them set a trend, though, and now there are thousands of shopping results for toddler heels and even the medical articles are starting to say high heels are okay within limits.

With respect to sources, I personally think the cult fanbase criteria is just a clarification of how the general rules can work for entertainers, not a fundamentally different rule. Be that as it may, only the first 2 of my 10 links are fan sites. Only the last 2 mention the Glamour poll. The remaining 6 are news items focusing on Suri Cruise that don't mention the Glamour magazine poll, as you request. All 6 are from reliable and independent sources - Xinhua is the biggest english language news source in China, the Mirror is a UK newspaper, Trending fashion, Stockport fashion and Us magazine are all fashion news sources, and celebTV.com (from which the youtube clip is taken) is a celebity news site. Some of them also mention Suri's parents, but the focus is on Suri so a casual mention of her parents should not be a disqualifier. If you really want an article that omits her parents' names, though, there's this one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/suri-cruise-heels-fur_n_1151542.html Warren Dew (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, User:Warren Dew is the user who converted the redirect into the article that it is now. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed I was. I was looking for information on Suri Cruise, which is usually a good indication an article is needed, and found only a redirect to pages with no relevant information. So yes, I petitioned an admin to unprotect and I created a stub in the hopes that others would fill it out with information useful to me.

At any rate, there are multiple articles about Suri in independent reliable sources, as documented above, including at least two that don't even mention the name of either parent, so she clearly meets WP:NOTABILITY Warren Dew (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Katie Holmes and speedy close; not notable in her own right. Mt king ^(edits) 00:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral After giving this much thought, I can't reach a decision. She meets the additional criteria in WP:BIO. See WP:ANYBIO ("received a well-known and significant award or honor") and WP:NMODEL ("large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"). However, proof of secondary sources here would cement change my !vote to keep. hmwith☮ 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not sure what you mean by "proof of secondary sources"? A number are linked to in the article and in comments above. Warren Dew (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those who suggest merging with Katie Holmes, why would we redirect to her mother's article? Why not her father's article? I'm a female, and that seems sexist against men/fathers. hmwith☮ 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that, at the time, there was more information about Suri in the mother's article than in the father's. You can't redirect to more than one target, so which do you do? I don't think the gender is a factor as such. If the parents are split, though, the redirect would likely go to the custodial parent, which - statistically - is usually the mother. That may have factored as well, if only to create what seemed at the time to be a precedent. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may be editorial reasons as well - if the father's article is already too long, and the mother's is not, it makes sense to add the child's section to the shorter article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was changed to a redirect when Suri was a newborn, the information on Suri either never made it to the parent's article or the information got deleted because the maintainers of Kate and Tom's articles were understandably uninterested in Suri. That's one of the problems with making it a redirect. Warren Dew (talk) 05:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue the opposite - if there wasn't much information about her individually, that's a really good argument that a redirect is more appropriate than an article. But that might not be the case now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is no individual encyclopedic notability here. This is a prime example for NOT INHERITED. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 8 March 2012 (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.