Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurora Rose Levesque

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. Mailer Diablo 11:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Rose Levesque

edit

Baby girl born on July 24th, has done nothing noteworthy other than being born to famous wrestlers, PROD removed by anon IP with no explanation.

  • Delete for now the kid needs to be a kid and is not important yet. Maybe when she becomes a part of a storyline maybe then but just put something on both Paul Levesque (HHH) and Stephanie's articles not by itself for now. Let the kid be a kid.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhall4 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I nominated it, so of coarse I support deleting it. She hasn't done anything noteworthy. I would support making it a re-direct to Stephanie McMahon like what happened with Brad Pitt's kid though. TJ Spyke 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not suprised that this page has been made. Let the kid be in an angle, and then maybe I'll give support, but not now. --Shaunvader 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shane & Marissa's kids don't have a page, so Hunter & Stephanie's kids shouldn't have one either. 24.7.217.221 03:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why should she get a article for being born? Perry 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People less than 24 hours old should not have their own Wikipedia article, unless, oh, I don't know, they come out fully grown or something. That, I'd support keeping as an article. ekedolphin 03:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If she was importent enough to a have her birth anounced on live tv then she's importent euough to have her own wiki. Plus in 50 or so years she'll own the WWE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.159.16.96 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete - unless she becomes a wrestler herself or she is used in some real notable storyline where she is effectively her own distinct entity, we shouldn't have an article just for association (being related to someone notable does not make one notable, that's a WP guideline). Besides, we wouldn't be able to write anything much about her anyways. kelvSYC 05:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hasn't done anything important, shouldn't have a page. --Chrysaor 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete only notable thing about her is her parentage.i dont mean it in an insulting way though.07:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete or redirect to Stephanie McMahon, as per the reasons stated by other users. -->So sayeth MethnorSayeth back|Other sayethings
  • Keep She's the daughter of two famous people, and her birth was announced in the media. I say that meets the qualifications. And if it’s not kept (which it should be) at least merge this article with Stephanie’s. --Oppy1984
  • deleted its completely pointless a day old baby doesnt need its own page. She isn't at all important to be entitled to her own page. Lil crazy thing 11:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep İ agree with --Oppy1984 it should be kept or merged with her mother's --Devletbek 14:08, 25 July 2006(UTC)
Actually the ones your mentioned are merged with their parents, making your case false. Perry 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why do we have an article on this. She might not even become a wrestler.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.108.250 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP SHE IS THE DAUGHTER OF STEPHANIE McMAHON AND TRIPLE H FOR GOD SAKES— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.131 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete While it's a pretty name, a mention in her mother/father's page is sufficient. Wildthing61476 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, babies do not get entries in WP unless they've been trapped in a well. (or somehow otherwise become notable other than parentage or family relations) hateless 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mothers of famous people are not notable, great uncles of famous people are not notable, and sweet lord, one-day-old babies of famous people are sure as hell not notable. -- Kicking222 20:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Voice of Treason 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I love her name, but the fact remains, she's a baby. She hasn't done anything noteworthy. If she "owns the WWE" 50 years from now, THEN she can have an article. There's nothing to write about her and being a baby with the possibility of being rich and famous in 50 years is not notability. We're all born with the same possibilities and opportunities, so being born to the most famous celebrities in the world doesn't make an ounce of difference. Srose (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, relatives and descendants of famous people do not have any inherent notability, and she's a baby for cryin' out loud. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - Have it redirect to Stephanie McMahon's page--Jdrouskirsh 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - leave as redirect to the mother. Info is in both parents' articles. Gimmetrow 23:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parents. The baby is barely 24hrs old, for pete's sake! --DarkAudit 23:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No indications of divine origin, unusual astronomical activity, royal blood, or any other distinction to differentiate this baby from the thousands of other babies born on the same date. --Allen3 talk 23:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She passes the google and name recognition tests laid out in the biography guidlines. The recognition is largely limited to a niche audience, but it is a large niche as measured by cable ratings and by wikipedia entries. Many professional wrestling wikipedia entries have a section devoted to current activity, not all of which will be noteworthy in itself, but is important in relation to the character the entry is build around. This is a current event and can be marked as such. Time will tell if a deletion is necessary, but for the time being it fits in with the other professional wrestling articles. -- Honkus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.206.230 (talk • contribs)
  • I don't think it does fit in, I am a big wrestling fan(WWE/TNA mostly) but I don't think she needs an article on her. She has done NOTHING noteworthy, hell she's only about 23 hours old. While i'm sure she will do something noteworthy eventually, right now the only thing she's "done" was had her birth announced on TV. She should be treated like all these other celebrity births and have her name be a re-direct page to her parent(s). Also, if she's anything like her cousins(Shane McMahon's kids) we won't hear anything more about her for quite some time. TJ Spyke 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any useful data can be merged into the parent's page. I REALLY don't want to see new pages any time a Hollywooder or similar has a kid. Does anyone hear really want to see wikipedia turn into an expanded promotional family photo album? Badbilltucker 01:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious reasons. Danny Lilithborne 02:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Stephanie McMahon-Levesque --- Lid 04:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't redirecting to one parent over another showing a point of view? -- Longhair 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, namely that since she did all the work, she should get the credit. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I GOT 2 WORDS FOR YA! Romeo Beckham! (Please note: that was not meant as a personal attack, only to show that women are not asexual).DonMEGĂ|60645 14:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Why should she get her own page when she hasn't done anything at all? There isn't even a picture of her anywhere. At least Shane's kid was on TV before therefore if she gets one then he should too since he at least was on TV once and all she did was have her name mentioned on TV while we actually got to see Shane's kid on Wrestlemania which is a bigger event then RAW is and he got to actuallty be shown on it. Besides even if she is in a storyline, she still shouldn't be on TV unless Rey's son also gets a article dedicated for him.--69.107.90.14 04:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- nn. - Longhair 04:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Stephanie McMahon or Triple H. --NeoChaosX 06:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stephanie McMahon. --Calton | Talk 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Listen here: SHE'S APART OF HISTORY ITSELF- A MEMBER OF ONE OF THE MOST RICHEST AND POWERFUL FAMILIES EVER IN HISTORY, HAS A RICH HISTORY OF WRESTLING HANDED DOWN TO HER- FROM BOTH STEPHANIE AND TRIPLE H'S POINT OF VIEW, AND MORESO, SHE'S A McMAHON! THAT SHOULD END THE CONVERSATION THERE- THE MCMAHON FAMILY IS INFLUENTAL IN BOTH SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, AND THE WORLD
She hasn't done anything noteworthy.: yeah, good one. Do you expect Aurora to run the WWE minutes after exiting her mother's womb, just so she could have a page on wikipedia?
Shane's child had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but appear on a video package of WrestleMania 20- IN WHICH HE WASN'T EVEN AWAKE IN! Yet, for a couple of months, he has his own Wiki page with an image of him asleep. Nobody complained about that, yet AS SOON AS STEPHANIE'S DAUGHTER IS BORN AND HAS HER OWN PAGE, EVERYONE COMPLAINS AND SAYS THAT SHE'S DONE NOTHING. So what! They're McMahons and they've already got their place in history...even if it was handed down to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.187.61 (talk • contribs)
Of coarse I think the info should be merged into both(although the info has already been added into Steph's page). But who should the re-direct be to? I say make it re-direct to Stephanie. TJ Spyke 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be consistent with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's child, who briefly had her own page Tromboneguy0186 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect/Merge not only has she done nothing noteworthy, her page offers little of importance that doesn't belong on the pages of her parents -WikiFew 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP*/ - If Shane Mcmahon's wife Marissa gets her own page, why shouldn't the little girl. She is already more famous than shane's wife!! LOL It's not doing anyone any harm, and when there is more information on her, someone will update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avouroudis (talk • contribs)
Marissa has a page because she is noteworthy. She is the director of public relations for WWE, hosted WWF LiveWire, has acted in a big movie, and made various other appearences for WWE. Aurora hasn't done anything not worthy and WP's guidelines are very clear on this, until someone does something noteworthy they should not have a page. It will be several years before Aurora does anything to deserve a page(unless she does something like fall in a well like Baby Jessica did). TJ Spyke 05:03, 30 July 2006 (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/Aurora_Rose_Levesque&oldid=1146386044"