This article was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2020. The result of the discussion was merge.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Black Lives Matter, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Black Lives Matter on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Black Lives MatterWikipedia:WikiProject Black Lives MatterTemplate:WikiProject Black Lives MatterBlack Lives Matter articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This redirect is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This redirect was created or improved during the BLM/Anti-discrimination edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project from July to December 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
It's a likely search term now that the subject has been in the news. It is just a redirect to a section that has details about her. TJMSmith (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because she is the primary subject of numerous articles by reliable sources. --Omnibus (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --97.82.197.233 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This Page is about a prominent social media influencer who also is the relative of a prominent political figure. It is necessary so that people can verify her identity to know that she is who she says she is on social media.[reply]
I was going to create a new article for Conway after the rise in notability concerning the White House COVID-19 outbreak, when I saw the redirect. As I would have made the article anyway, and given she is now covered in international media, I feel the recreation is warranted. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to Keep the article in the past discussion. If you would like to recreate the page, I suggest you take it to WP:DRV. Until then, I request that the closing admin, Ritchie333WP:SALT the redirect until a review is completed. KidAdtalk16:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: You mean the AfD that was borderline merge/keep, only wanted a little more notability, and you were the only argument to delete/redirect? It's an obvious recreation - that I would have made as a new article, as I said - now that she's all over international headline news, you're just pushing the very dubious AfD result because you don't like it. Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: I never said that. The decision was merge, but if you read the discussion and closing statement, it was borderline. Stop pushing your singular opinion. Stop deleting until this has been discussed. It goes both ways, Kid. Kingsif (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ONUS, the onus The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So feel free to go to WP:DRV and I will respect the result of the review. KidAdtalk16:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KidAd: You know that this would be laughed out of DRV because that's for overturning a decision based on the merits at the time. Circumstances have changed. The AfD shouldn't be overturned, but that doesn't mean the subject is still no longer notable enough for her own article. This happens all the time on Wikipedia, when a previously not-notable person now meets GNG (usually actors who gain more credits). We don't need reviews for that, we just recreate the article with more sources, and then it's up to someone who doesn't want it to exist to prove why under new circumstances. And you know ONUS doesn't apply either because controversial content inclusion and article existence aren't the same thing. You're just being difficult, but I can just take this to 3O if you don't see reason. Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to take it to 3O. I already pinged the closing admin, but any additional input would be helpful. Feel free to continue to make bad faith accusations and load my talk page with notices, but it is not a productive way of getting what you want. That seems fairly difficult to me. KidAdtalk17:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is KidAd. I request that you do not assign me any pet names until we get to know each other on a more personal level. KidAdtalk17:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: Generally speaking, consensus decisions such as "merge" or "redirect" made at AfD should not be unilaterally overturned by simple recreation. That is true even more so when someone has actually raised an objection to the recreation. The matter should be brought up at DRV for community input. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: You seem to have responded to something that isn't the debate. It's not overturning. The issue here is that the AfD was fine - DRV wouldn't help because nobody is contesting the procedure of the AfD - but that since the decision was made, the subject has become more notable. Wikipedia has bios (and other articles) that have been deleted one year and then recreated the next without having to 'undo' the previous action, because it's obvious that they now pass notability. This is the same case, but KidAd passed 3RRkept blanking to not even allow new sources to be added. Like, for example, Business Insider's Claudia Conway's popular, unfiltered TikTok account is a communications problem for the Trump administration. Major publications seeing her as a political threat. Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you two discuss this, but I don't know what you mean by "pass 3RR." Here, I restored the redirect after noticing that someone had attempted to re-create the page (against AfD consensus). I then made one revert and another. That is not a violation of 3RR. KidAdtalk20:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Yes, the point is that once notability is established, there is no discussion option for "do we create this page?" - someone creates it, is given room to improve it, and if another editor still finds it doesn't pass GNG with new content they AfD it again. That's the process that is usually followed, it's just only been a few months this time instead of longer so the original AfD nominator won't allow it to happen. Kingsif (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RfC is an option, but a procedure that I find generally has low participation and takes a long time. And there would still need to be at least a draft of the new version of the article to be discussed in the first place. Kingsif (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out that the AfD decision is basically moot: it applied to Conway in July. Since then she's been the reason a top advisor has quit the White House (August) and effectively a whistleblower the entire world is listening to when it comes to the President's health (October). As a bio subject the TikTok influencer and the political maverick are basically different people. The AfD decision also, per the WP AfD rules, only applies to the article/sources as it was at the time. With new, notable sources, the AfD decision really is background noise. Kingsif (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification would've been an appropriate option at the time of the AfD, but no editor made the suggestion. Could a draft be created, based on this version, and worked on (for some period of time) before it is submitted for review? I would be happy to contribute to the draft. KidAdtalk20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My take is that consensus can change. I voted to merge in the previous AfD but would lean towards keep now that there is new additional coverage [1][2][3]. IHMO, the article should be restored and expanded (carefully as this is a BLP of a minor) with the new reputable sources. After, if there is still question about notability, a new RFC or AFD can be started. TJMSmith (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED states that "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, but only if they pass WP:GNG." I agree that just the fact that she is the child of famous people does not qualify her for an article (see WP:INVALIDBIO). IMO, what qualifies her for an article is the WP:SIGCOV surrounding her relationship with her mother and her own views and actions. For what it's worth, this reminds me slightly of Isra Hirsi because much of the coverage is connected to her mother. TJMSmith (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, 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, but only if they pass WP:GNG is not policy, because that is some nonsense. Per WP:INVALIDBIO, ...That 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 (unless significant coverage can be found on A). That would mean that this kid would need to pass WP:CREATIVE for her """career""" as a TikTok person. However, the sources are all the same. "A child of famous parents is rebelling against her famous parents...online." If anything, it appears that most media sources are using this kid as a window into the life of her mother. Busines Insider says, for example, her posts became a lens into her relationship with her mother. I think Vanity Fair said it best: Claudia Conway, a kid with a phone that her parents presumably pay for. (source) KidAdtalk04:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is not inherited" is the reason Barron Trump doesn't have an article. There's a lot of sources on him, but he has done nothing besides be Trump's son. The teenage Conway has done multiple notable things that aren't just exist as a famous person's child. There's no rule that her notability can't be in relation to more-notable relatives, as long as her actions are notable - and they are. Kingsif (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Most of the articles on/about her mention her making TikTok videos, gabbing off-the-cuff about politics, and disliking her parents. Sounds like most 15-year-old girls to me. KidAdtalk06:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, I do agree there's definitely been some extenuating developments since the last article and whilst notability isn't inherited she's arguably at the point where she's now notable in her own right. I don't think taking it to deletion review would hurt. You'd probably get a quicker resolution than debating it here and the result would be definitive rather than just having someone revert to the redirect again. Glen (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Glen, but DELREV isn't the appropriate place? E.g. when there's been an AfD for keep but there's new circumstances and it seems appropriate to merge the article, we don't try to overturn the decision. Nothing was out of process, so I don't think it will help. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, for clarity I agree with you however the recreation has been reverted three times now (admittedly all by the same editor) and you are effectively trying to get the result of an AFD overturned so... I just think it may put a pin in it. Glen (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject meets WP:SIGCOV, she does not need to meet WP:CELEBRITY or WP:CREATIVE. Available sources are significant in coverage, reliable, and independent of the subject. What part of WP:SIGCOV does she not meet? Here is another article [4]. I know it mentions her parents but the story primarily focuses on her. TJMSmith (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TJMSmith, to my mind she meets GNG now, she's the subject of numerous articles and yes they mention her parents but the articles are about her. But again per Seraphimblade above the DRV is more procedural at this point, especially as there are editors (or perhaps more precisely an editor?) that disagrees. Glen (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly disagree. I nominated the page for deletion the first time around and stand by that nomination. I am curious to hear imput from the editors who voted delete, merge, and redirect in that discussion. I would also be happy to nominate the page again to allow editors to evaluate the subject's notability based on new sources provided. I still think WP:DRV is the obvious option, and do not understand the previous statement "You know that this would be laughed out of DRV because that's for overturning a decision based on the merits at the time." I have little-to-no experience with DRV procedure, but if there is an assumption that the recreation of an article that was deleted after an AfD is "laughable," then maybe it shouldn't be recreated. KidAdtalk18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is more about whether the original decision had any faults, was closed for the wrong reason. Since there is no evidence of that here, and what we really want is a new decision, it would, in my view, be laughed out, like sending an existing article to AfC to defend making it. It's the wrong process. Kingsif (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: Generally speaking, consensus decisions such as "merge" or "redirect" made at AfD should not be unilaterally overturned by simple recreation. That is true even more so when someone has actually raised an objection to the recreation. The matter should be brought up at DRV for community input. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)