Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson

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 except signature updates.

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 02:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Larson

She apparently is notable for being a former cocktail waitress, appearing on a reality show, and dating George Clooney. Insufficient, in my book. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being a Fear Factor winner and the girlfriend of someone famous isn't enough per WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not inherited was designed for cases like this. When an article flat-out says the subject's biggest claim to fame is being someone's girlfriend, it's begging to be deleted. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not our job to make value judgements. Since she has been noticed in several ways by reliable sources, she is notable. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the one who made the article from a redirect to Clooney that was embedded within the article on Clooney. Wikipedia isn't lessened by people who may have flash-in-the-pan ephemeral fame, yet are still somewhat notable, but strengthened by it. The information is verifiable and she's a hot topic in actual magazines everywhere. I'm not a celebrity gawker or anything, but anyone who I'm forced to read headlines about while I'm waiting in line to buy my groceries sure seems notable enough to want to look to see what wikipedia may have to say about her. JesseRafe (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think WP:N#TEMP addresses that argument. Both Fear Factor contestants/winners and Clooney girlfriends have come and gone with no corresponding notability. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another comment on the talk page of the article proper by what looks like a new wikipedian, also supporting the existence of the article. Unfortunately this is the only edit he made after signing up, but that IP address seems to have made some valid edits over the prior year. Basically, remember that wikipedia belongs to the readers -- not the secretive cabal that wants to control what wikipedia should be. People will want to look her up, and see if there is anything pertinent to say about her. Finding nothing would be dissatisfying for them, and perhaps reflect poorly on wikipedia's reputation as a compendium; while finding an article that says she ain't done much (yet) will allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Remember, it is for the readers that we write. JesseRafe (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules and guidelines are established via consensus of all participants who care to express their opinion, not "a secretive cabal that wants to control what wikipedia should be." Please assume good faith in the rules and their application. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have your opinion, I have mine. Just so you know, talk to any non-wikipedian, and they have no idea who makes these types of decisions-- not just about which articles are deleted, but who sets these policies as well. And it is not a true concensus, it is a concensus of those people who "want to control what wikipedia should be" -- the common reader has no say in these issues. Remember, wikipedia is written for the reader, articles are not written so that they should conform to the MOS. JesseRafe (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came here from the article, I don't check AfDs. Keepscases (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are much more noteworthy individuals who somehow have not yet merited a Wiki page, so why this broad? She's no one, no one important, no one interesting. Nothing. Not much is known about her to begin with, and come on, doesnt Wikipedia have some sort of STANDARD to live up to? Much more interesting articles, like that of Johnny Baima, which DO have significance, were deleted for less. And by making her a page, we are contributing to more than one problem. The girl was a nine.com T&A for hire, girls who by common knowledge are regularly know to provide "extra" services at parties for the right price. You cant even find much by googling her--because SHE'S NOBODY.Thesetrixaintforkids (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2008 (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.