Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein

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. Tone 17:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Wildenstein

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

Contested prod. Subject does not meet WP:BLP1E provisions (cf. an essay), or WP:N. The current version explains why they came under the media spotlight, with singular-focused press coverage (which included unflattering nicknames). Aside from a smattering of biographic info. used to pad out those press pieces, sources seem absent: there is no evidence of significant coverage required to build an encyclopedic article. –Whitehorse1 16:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brian Peppers all over again. Mangoe (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive press coverage, many GNews and GBooks hits, and even a fair number of Google Scholar hits, including pieces equating her cosmetic surgery fixation with Michael Jackson's. While she's best known for her bizarre (and entirely self-inflicted) appearance, coverage like that in the NY Times shows she's notable for other activities. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly sufficient coverage for notability.--Michig (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like she fails WP:BLP1E pretty clearly. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article, as shown by her entry in a print encyclopedia from a major academic publisher. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Mangoe. Has no hope of becoming encyclopedic or properly filled out because most of the sources are tabloids, and repeating the claims would end up violating BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How can this have "no hope of becoming encyclopedic" when it has an entry in a print encyclopedia published by the Greenwood Publishing Group? Surely that demonstrates that the subject has already become encyclopedic. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just an entry in a book about body adornment, [1] and it notes that she's the object of tabloid attention. Trying to write a bio without using the tabloids would be very difficult, and in any event she does fail BLP1. The article would end up being either cruel or incomplete, and probably both. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sixteen references at the NYTimes site can't fairly be described as tabloid, nor can the nontrivial number of Google Scholar hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't intend on replying to every comment, re the NYT though: in the 1st result the subject's only mentioned in a reader comment, the 2nd is a mere mention (list of people patronizing an auction house with their goods that year), 3rd's a fleeting mention, the 4th's a passing mention of her in an article about another member of the family (a Sylvia), 5–16 again are mere mentions. Of those I just looked at on gscholar: the first one's a mere mention in someone's unrelated dissertation, the next is her name mentioned in a quote at the start of a book chapter, the third is result one repeated. –Whitehorse1 02:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
Keep. Notable. Perhaps not for the right reasons, but indeed notable. --FormlessOne 11:54 PM, 3/14/2010. —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable for more than just one reason. --71.203.125.108 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What happened with this article? I came searching for info and found this article empty and nominated for deletion. I don't think notability is a concern, although writing it neutrally and respectfully can be a challenge. Abisharan (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails several BLP criteria. Several people have said 'notable for more than just one reason', yet none has articulated what those other reasons are. Achromatic (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Noteable, just.--80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; textbook case of BLP1E. Fran Rogers ❇ 00:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is BLP1E...notable for only one rather shallow and transient thing. In five years, no one will want to look up the name. --Stani Stani 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E, human decency, etc. Steve Smith (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Horrible article of no worth about a living person. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - basic biography concerns, human dignity. ---MohammadMosaddeq (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic BLP1E stub-article - Alison ^❤ 03:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article can't be judged from its present form--it's been a good deal worse than that. I'm rather restrictive about what I use BLP 1E for, and this is really more than one event--but delete upon general BLP grounds as inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 18 March 2010 (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.