Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonya Curry

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. Based on my reading of the discussion, it seems like the delete camp believes that the sources primarily reflect the notability of her family, while the keep camp thinks there is enough coverage of Sonya Curry to establish notability. Generally speaking, notability is predicated on the available sources and not the current state of a page (WP:NEXIST) There are a bunch of sidetracks such as the notability of other people, but on the key question it seems like there is no clear consensus, perhaps with a lean towards "keep". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Curry

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sonya Curry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I fail to see why being the mother of two NBA players makes this person notable. —Chowbok ☠ 09:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- A NN head teacher of a probably unnoteworthy school, whose alleged notability is inherited from her sons. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ESPN, The New York Times, NBC, Fox, The Washington Post, CBS, Bleacher Report, San Francisco Chronicle, The Mercury News, USA Today, etc. beg to differ. For page not even 2 weeks old evidently 80,000 people have been interested in her because of the ridiculous amount of media attention she gets. (Yet for some reason Julia Lennon is a "Good Article" (with two banned sources) and what did she do besides... give birth and then die? She surely wasn’t getting interviewed every week. I have to laugh.) Trillfendi (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable for being a media personality, not a teacher. She's covered quite a bit in several sources, like Trillfendi mentions and the SF article makes it clear that she became an "internet sensation" all the way back in 2013 on her own. It doesn't matter why she became a sensation. Just that she did. I found coverage of her starting from 2008. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's definitely more than enough news coverage of her.198.52.130.177 (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the GNG — in short, she's notable because people have taken note. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- She's notable due to her family members being notable. But for one line about her being president of a school, most of her page is devoted to Stephen and Seth. If you want to add more information about her, add it to the Personal Life section of Dell Curry. If she evolves and becomes a celebrity in her own right - give her her own page. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You must’ve missed the part where practically every major news publication in America has done in depth reporting on her. People are interested in her. Numbers don’t lie check the scoreboard (pageviews). It doesn’t matter why, it matters that the sources exist and go more than mere mention. Really not much different than LaVar Ball. The school is what she’s been doing for decades but that’s outside of all this media attention (which in all honesty she gets for her beauty. ESPN practically has an in-set camera to show her every 5 seconds.) Like user Megalibrarygirl said this attention goes back over 10 years. Trillfendi (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But then we have an entire series of articles on Beatles band members’ family members which evidently is purely for memorabilia purposes instead of with actual sentences like Mimi admitted that she never had the time to "go playing ducks in the bath with him" (Lennon) but that Smith would put Lennon to bed nearly every night. so apply an even hand to the double standard, folks. Trillfendi (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proof of the pudding isn't what you write here, but rather what you write on the page and you haven't written much there about her. If you had indeed done that, you wouldn't have to defend her so vigorously here. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote was to get page started, quite obviously. The only reason the page was proposed for deletion to begin with was the nominator was stalking my contributions looking for things to delete because he doesn’t like what I say. So that’s his personal vendetta. Other than that, come June one will expect yet even more coverage on her to continue happening like it has been lately for weeks you know why, while editors contribute to the page as they have been. Trillfendi (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! So sorry you had to go through that. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s called context. And OSE is an essay not a policy. I referred to multiple family members. Mimi Smith, George Irrelevant Toogood Smith, etc.; in John Lennon’s family template all of his relatives except Sean inexplicably have Good Articles. If that is the threshold people on this website staunchly adhere to then that’s what I’m gonna go by. (I proposed George Smith for deletion but the rabidly irrational Beatles fans accused me of pointism. Look at that article and tell me where the notability is ever expressed. It’s pathetic.) Another editor’s attempt to delete the absolutely terrible Daily Mail-grade article of Paul McCartney’s parents went much worse. Anyway, none of those family members combined got an ounce of the coverage that Sonya Curry gets. Trillfendi (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple sources, esp. sources where she is also in the headline. Yes, she has famous sons (and husband), but the coverage is mainly on her, as opposed to her being a passing mention as someone's mother or wife. For those that are still borderline, WP:IAR on the fact that she has been a popular TV crowd shot since 2008; readers want to know about her (even if you might not agree with why). Julia Lennon (mentioned above) is a fair comparison, whatever side you are on.—Bagumba (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should Olivia Manning have her own article, too? She's Archie's wife, and Peyton and Eli's mom. Like this woman, she's done nothing notable or significant on her own, other than being directly related to three famous sports figures. There are people on Wikipedia who believe that we are far too inclusive of biography articles of sports figures, and now we're going to expand that out to include articles on the relatives of sports figures? Frankly, I do worry a bit about setting a slippery slope precedent here. I would redirect this to her husband's article, and call it a day. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Olivia Manning had the extraordinary level of coverage that Sonya Curry has, then I wouldn’t see why not. But she doesn’t.... 🤷‍♀️ Dynasties are nothing new. This is really the anomaly. Trillfendi (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejgreen77: We should keep Curry because she meets GNG, and we can write a decent size article to meet guideline WP:WHYN. This should not set a precedent for every sportspersons' spouse or parent, anymore than Clipper Darrell opened floodgates for any random fan. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even though a strict interpretation of WP:BIOFAMILY might suggest her own accomplishments do not merit an article of her own, the sheer number of interviews and the compelling stories that go beyond her family makes her notable, even if it is in part due to the extreme fame of Stephen Curry in particular. It is difficult to underestimate the global popularity of the NBA. Without a doubt she is famous and people will come to Wikipedia to learn more about her. The article seems to be well-sourced. It would be a shame and rather strange, to parse out information in this article to subsections of her sons and/or husband. So, all-in-all, it's a rather strong 'keep' from me. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV, but Note that in fact we KEEP plenty of pages mothers notable primarily for being "mother of..." a famous person, or 2 or 3 famous persons . c.f. not only Mary Washington and just about every other Presidential Mom, but Esther Wojcicki, Italia Coppola, Kay Robertson, Catherine Scorsese. Should we have a Category?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: Esther Wojcicki is notable beyond her daughter being a major CEO, for what it’s worth. Trillfendi (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's not, actually. If she didn't have kids, she'd be a locally admired high school teacher. What you may not have known is that all of the notable appointments come to Wojcicki only after the girls became very, very rich. The close relatives of big donors get appointed to things like Presidential commissions. That the opportunities for fame came as a consequence of the kids becoming famous is, I think, true for each of the women I mentioned. My point is that as with Sonya Curry and Michael Haley, sourcing to support notability can come from being closely related ot a notable person.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Barack Obama never became president would Ann Dunham’s academic career be so noteworthy? The world may never know. At any rate, Mrs. Curry only gets as much attention as she allows, of course, so if she wasn’t a willing, enthusiastic participant in the media there’d be nothing to write about. While they never explicitly say it half the reason is her looks (I mean, well, could it be more obvious?) Though one must consider she’s the *only* sports mom getting this level of press. It’s like she’s the Kris Jenner of it. Trillfendi (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Curry is great looking. I had no idea. Notability can come from good looks, from being a WP:MILL anthropologist who gives birth ot a remarkable son, or, well, from lots of things otherthan working hard and contributing something valuable to the world, cf. Category:Kardashian family. But Sonya Curry and Ann Durham are part of an actual group: women who would not have pages except for coverage of their activities driven by the fact that they are mothers of notable children.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! We have a List of stage mothers. And we have tennis parents Richard Williams and Oracene Price. I wonder if there enough sports parents to make a list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We all know notability isn’t inherited (well, it shouldn’t be), that everybody requires reliable, independent sources and significant coverage whether they are actual royalty (Aside: I mean..., an exception was made for Baby Archie who wasn’t even born yet when he got an article but the reliable sources were expected to be there in real time. I think that was an egregious abuse of the Crystal Ball policy though.) or entertainment nepotism. Even if the interest is due relation, the stories have to focus on them, which is proven here. TBH, I don’t think I’ve yet seen Sonya do an interview with her son(s). Anyways, the major advantage Mrs. Curry has over other famous moms™ is her relative youth; and she is still alive to tell her side of story rather than have a historian scrape anecdotes together to even attempt to form notability. It’s like, how long before they give this woman her own tv show at this rate. Trillfendi (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess my struggle is seeing how she's notable, besides being Steph and Seth Curry's mom, and Dell Curry's wife. If that type of notoriety deserves an article, does this mean Peyton and Eli Manning's mom deserves an article? Why doesn't Wanda Durant have an article? A quick Google search shows plenty of notable sources detailing both of these mothers. Sonya Curry has done these interviews and had these articles written about her solely because she's Steph's mom (a wildly successful player who has won the finals 3 out of the 4 past years) and she is always shown on TV in the stands, so people know and see her. But ultimately, her notoriety stems from her kids and husband. No different than Olivia Manning or Wanda Durant, or the hundreds of other mothers of successful athletes.--Templeowls17 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIOFAMILY excludes relatives that are mentioned in passing. Look at the citations already in Curry's article. They are not. just trite "Steph's mom is Sonya" mentions. In fact, she's in the headline of most of them. Regarding potentially notable mom's without articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not in itself a strong argument. If they meet WP:GNG, they should be created ... and kept.—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already addressed the fact that if Olivia Manning got this level of coverage then there could be sustenance for an article if someone wanted to do that. But all she has is New Orleans Living Magazine and that’s a stretchless reach. Whereas Sonya Curry has a wealth reliable sources wrapped around her finger doing long stories not just, “oh hey, look, there’s Steph’s mom.” with a one sentence quote. Most of which have already been named such as Washington Post, New York Times, NBC, Fox, etc. ESPN even cared enough to profile her childhood in 2,000 words. Face the music, folks, there are people want to know about this woman. CBS is out here doing stories about her pre-game ritual, for crying out loud. Trillfendi (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, we do not keep articles only on people who "deserve" them. We keep articles on people who pass standards like WP:BASIC and WP:SIGCOV. Even airheads, low lives, dastards, ax murderers, and, yes, the occasional Mom. As long as the INDEPTH coverage is there......E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s why I spoke hypothetically for Manning. The proof is already in the pudding for Curry. Trillfendi (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2019 (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/Sonya_Curry&oldid=1056960060"