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 defaulting to keep. Fairly even split between those who believe she has her own notability and those who think WP:NOTINHERITED applies, with similar debate about several sources. Merge discussion can be held on talk page if desired, though it'd probably end up with a similarly even split. ansh 666 04:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Hennessy Carolina

Hennessy Carolina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Aside from IG followers and walking the red carpet with her sister, no notability. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 20:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 23:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 23:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete I too thought of AfD'd this one but Google search does not yield anything solid for me so I requested speedy deletion which was declined by Ritchie333, however but no offense. The subject is famous due to her sister so Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited applies here. -- Saqib ( talk) 04:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep or (second choice) Redirect to Cardi B where she is already mentioned. It's definitely not a delete (see 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 ... However, person A may be included in the related article on B.") which implies it sure isn't a speedy. The sources I get when I hit the "news" link all appear to be female-oriented with an emphasis on fashion and gossip, but that doesn't make them unreliable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Based on above reasoning by Ritchie333, I would go with merge thus striking my delete. -- Saqib ( talk) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I updated the article with more info and citations. She has been appearing regularly in the news since BET did an extensive piece on her last September, [1] including articles about her style, her relationship with Cardi B, her personal life, etc. She also regularly appeared on the long-running reality show Love & Hip Hop: New York with her sister. The article now easily passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I think she might also pass WP:ENTERTAINER for "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" because she has over 2 million followers on Instagram. Lonehexagon ( talk) 23:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge 2 million instagram followers isn't that much nowadays, especially because they can be bought for a few thousand dollars. Information can be included in her sisters article. Wikitigresito ( talk) 05:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  This article also passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] It was also just announced Hennessey will be one of 10 stars competing in The Challenge: Champs vs Stars season 3, which will only further increase her exposure. [9] Lonehexagon ( talk) 01:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I'd say this was premature, but it's only a matter of hours old. It's a deletion solution in search of an issue. Even a cursory glance of search engines and news aggregators shows clear passing of WP:GNG through significant non-incidental individual coverage. 2600:1000:B035:EFC0:2258:715B:CEBF:1F92 ( talk) 04:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Redirect to Cardi B - four lines of pure gossip that has no place on an encyclopedia. Only relevant for appearing alongside with her sister at the Grammys, which is far from enough. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 23:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Well I think human penis size (or at least 3,000 words of it) has no real place on an encyclopedia, but your mileage may vary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Open an AfD for it if you think so. You should just avoid comparisons that don't even make sense, we're talking about a person who's solely known thanks to her sister and whose article exclusively reports her personal life. GNG is an overused excuse to write articles about encyclopedically irrelevant subjects like this one we're discussing. ׺°”˜`”°º× ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 23:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

What a feckin' load. Fascinating to see your views on perhaps the most well-established policy as something which is "an excuse". There must be something going on here that keeps you from recognizing the truth in everyone's eyes. HOT WUK ( talk) 05:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The truth is anyone who has a problem with the WP:GNG guidelines can visit that page and start a discussion on the talk page. I agree it's bad form to vote to delete an article because you WP:DONTLIKEIT and simply don't agree with the official Wikipedia guidelines. Lonehexagon ( talk) 17:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. No reason to waste anyone's time than to reiterate the truth in line with Wikipolicy as per the previous. HOT WUK ( talk) 05:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment This article passes WP:GNG for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] It was also just announced Hennessey will be one of 10 stars competing in The Challenge: Champs vs Stars season 3, which will only further increase her exposure. [17] Lonehexagon ( talk) 17:19, 7 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Just copy edit. This article needs to be completely rewritten if kept.
• Merge or Redirect: To be honest I find zero reasons to keep but am contesting ignored policies and guidelines and head counts. Everything I find is associated with Cardi B, as exampled by the first round of nine refbombed sources (all but 2: Really! check them out) by user:Lonehexagon, and so important to push that they were repeated in a round two, surely proves that notability is inherited. One article admits HENNESSY CAROLINA ALMANZAR IS NOT AN EASY PERSON TO GOOGLE. Add to this that of the 12 references on the article the VH-1 news is the only one that does not include either "Cardi B" or variants of "Cardi B's Younger Sister". An event that is scheduled to occur but has not happened yet per crystal ball (what Wikipedia is not) and her sister splashed on almost everything "Hennessy Carolina" would seem to make it apparent that I like it (not valid reasoning) or IAR (better valid reasoning) as the only real justification for keeping. Otr500 ( talk) 20:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  WP:INHERITED is about how "Notability requires verifiable evidence" and simply being related in some way does not prove notability without significant discussion about a subject as an individual. However, in this case there is significant coverage about Hennessey in secondary, reliable sources, which means WP:INHERITED is not applicable here. The article that says she's hard to google is from September last year and is one of the older sources. A more recent article says in the title: Who Is Cardi B's Sister? Hennessy Carolina Is Pretty Famous On Her Own. WP:GNG states a subject may be notable if they received significant coverage in independent sources. According to the guidelines, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Hennessey is discussed in the title and body of all those sources, even if Cardi B is also mentioned. Lonehexagon ( talk) 17:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comments: Is Wikipedia messing up? It shows that this is the first edit for IP User 2600:1000:B035:EFC0:2258:715B:CEBF:1F92. If that is right then to jump right into an AFD and policy seems strange. I am not trying to assume bad faith but can only see what I see which would seem to indicate a possible SPA or something. Otr500 ( talk) 20:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Otr500: probably just a dynamic IP. I've seen a similar IP address (or addresses) make constructive contributions to deletion and RM debates. feminist ( talk) 11:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NOTINHERIT. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC). reply
• Delete or Redirect. I think the WP:NOTINHERIT is strongly relevant to this discussion, and I do not believe this person to be independently notable enough on her own to warrant her own article. Much of her fame and status is based far too heavily off her sister, and any possible notable output is based off being a recurring character in one reality show (and appearing in an episode of a game show in the future). The article itself reads like a saccharine gossip column, unencyclopedically describing her significant other as "mysterious" while only giving a first name (possibly an abbreviated variant, even). As well, 2 million social media followers should not, by itself, be basis for Wikipedia inclusion, since that is not suggestive of anything other than HC's follower count and social media usage. to conclude, the article, in its present state, has no basis for existing on Wikipedia, and is written without respect for encyclopedic prose or standards. Mungo Kitsch ( talk) 18:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep Strong Keep. While she is primarily known because of her relationship with Cardi B, there is plenty of non-trivial coverage of her so that the article is verifiable and easily passes WP:GNG. In fact, WP:NOTINHERIT even addresses this situation directly: "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". -- Sykes83 ( talk) 22:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep - plenty of good third party sources. Per WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 07:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. no independent notability. Trying to stretch the gossip and PR into reliable coverage is absurd from the pov of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Cardi B#Family. Clear case of WP:NOTINHERIT, looked through the sources mentioned here and on the page and saw nothing except brief mentions, and as User:DGG summed up gossip and PR. -- J04n( talk page) 12:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think it would be helpful if those advocating for delete could specifically address the full-length feature articles in BET and to a lesser degree Vogue and Bustle. Are we to disregard that BET and Vogue are reliable sources with significant coverage about the subject? -- Sykes83 ( talk) 18:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

The purpose of those magazine includes promotion for figures who haven't done much of anything--each case needs to be examined. No source is reliable for anything, and this sort of coverage is not reliable no matter where it appears. If one has to write an headline saying someone's sister is pretty notable on her own, it actually implies exactly the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Thanks for replying. While I don't necessarily agree because I personally don't see a clear policy-based argument to disregard those sources, it is helpful to understand the rationale for doing so. -- Sykes83 ( talk) 17:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; the contents are just an aggregation of gossip, and we are not a tabloid. Sandstein 20:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - there is some coverage in reliable sources, and she's not just known for being Cardi B's sister. Barely passes WP:GNG. Once the upcoming show airs it would be a full keep. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Merge into into Cardi B#Family. LivinRealGüd ( talk) 22:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep Increasing recent coverage of Hennessy Carolina's independent projects. No reason to penalize Hennessy Carolina just because articles about her activities typically also mention her famous sister Cardi B. You don't become more notable by being related to somebody famous, but no reason you should become less notable. HouseOfChange ( talk) 04:56, 22 April 2018 (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.