Talk:Dalton Conley

Children's names

@Revirvlkodlaku, happy to discuss. I'm actually surprised there hasn't already been a discussion about this over the years. While I agree that it's generally best practice to avoid including children's names unless the children are notable, this seems like an obvious exception. Conley's children's names are part of his biography worth including, as evidenced by the coverage in reliable sources like the BBC and NYTimes explicitly about the names. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that would suggest otherwise. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is not applicable, as they are not victims nor are they the article subjects. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Ganesha811, you're right, WP:AVOIDVICTIM probably isn't the most applicable policy, but it's the best one I found after a cursory search. It's always been my impression that children's names shouldn't be mentioned unless they are notable, but I can't seem to find the exact policy that addresses the topic. What is the reason you think this should be included on Conley's page? The way it's written, it's basically a throwaway comment, so whether or not it's been discussed in media sources still seems irrelevant, as it doesn't say anything meaningful about the article topic. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Simply put, it should be included because we summarize what reliable sources have to say, and reliable sources have chosen to cover this as a significant part of Conley's life. I think you're right that we could make the significance clearer. Perhaps we could just add something like: "Media outlets have noted Conley & Jerimijenko's choice to give their children unusual names; they have a daughter named E and a son named..." —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with that logic. The name of Conley's children has no relevance to the subject of his notability, and just because media sources have chosen to report on it doesn't change the fact that it's either trivia or simply nonrelevant. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

What makes it trivia or non-relevant? What is the "subject of his notability"? Biographical articles include detail that goes beyond the thing for which people are most immediately notable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The NYTimes source describes Conley's sociological motive for the names. Perhaps if we rephrased to make that clearer, that would address your concern? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it's important enough to mention and to state the names of his children. What's the subject of his notability? He's a sociologist; the subject of his notability is his sociological work. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

And as a sociologist he named his children unusually for sociological reasons, a fact noted and covered in detail by at least two major reliable secondary sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

You've only provided a link to one secondary source, so I'm not sure what other one you're referring to. I suggest getting a 3o at this stage, because it seems we are at an impasse. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I added the BBC source to the article - you reverted the change. Here it is. I agree, we can give it a few days to let anyone else weigh in here, but if not, WP:3O seems like a good option to help us resolve this. The WP:BLPN noticeboard also seems like it may be helpful. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: I don't object to the names given how it fits into the subject's work. It might make more sense to mention it in the career section. Nemov (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2026 (UTC)