Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Alexandra Dupré (2nd nomination)
From 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 Speedy keep. Per: the snowfall in hades. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley Alexandra Dupré (2nd nomination)
[edit]- Ashley Alexandra Dupré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Proposing for deletion. This is a news item, not a bio. Cover the event, not the person is the policy's motto. Subject's lawyer has said that she considers herself a private person, and this one"event" should not change that. --Jkp212 (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, is this a joke?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This page was nominated and snowball kept just one day ago. Nesodak (talk) 05:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a joke of a bio. How can you call that a biography? It is a news item, and coverage of that event exists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal --Jkp212 (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what is so notable about here besides her affair with Spitzer? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare Monica Lewinsky, a person who had a similar impact. Should that be deleted as well? Nesodak (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT the same as Lewinsky. That was years of coverage on a president who almost lost his seat. This one is more of a run-of-the-mill sex scandal, which is covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal The coverage on this will soon dissipate. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen the article titled Lewinsky scandal? What else did she do that was notable? Nesodak (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that the scope of this and the Lewinsky scandal can not be compared. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen the article titled Lewinsky scandal? What else did she do that was notable? Nesodak (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT the same as Lewinsky. That was years of coverage on a president who almost lost his seat. This one is more of a run-of-the-mill sex scandal, which is covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal The coverage on this will soon dissipate. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare Monica Lewinsky, a person who had a similar impact. Should that be deleted as well? Nesodak (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. As I said earlier "once the toothpaste is out of the tube it is very hard to put back in". The issue of her privacy is a thing of the past, impossible to maintain if she ever wanted it. This is no "15 minutes of fame". In addition to her coverage in major newspapers and magazines (New York Times[1], Newsweek[2], Newsday[3],etc [4] she will soon be worth millions of dollars from her music and through appearances in films, magazines and undoubtedly talk shows, etc.[5]. --KeepItClean (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If and when she makes appearances in films, magazines, and talk shows then it will be a different situation, and she would be independently notable (outside of the EVENT --Jkp212 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - did the nominator read WP:DP#Deletion discussion? Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. This was just nominated and kept ýesterday - this is a disruptive renomination. Nesodak (talk) 05:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as notability clearly established. Also clear she will not disappear as movie and magazine offers come rolling in. See Divine Brown for example of sex worker who met a celebrity. Renominating this so soon after a snowball keep is wrong thing to do in my opinion. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not closed by an administrator. There was not proper time to allow editors to voice their opinions. Even here, within a few minutes, you have found an ADMIN who is OPPOSED to the inclusion of this article. Additionally, it is a BLP violation, since outside of the ridiculous coverage of this event, she is a private person. Wait until she is no longer a private person (if she does movies, etc), and then an article would be justified --Jkp212 (talk) 6:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Does not her singing career and outstanding success on Amie Street make her a public person? --KeepItClean (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, really, if she had a notable singing career she wouldn't have been a prostitute. That is just a freak part of the event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_scandal --Jkp212 (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not her singing career and outstanding success on Amie Street make her a public person? --KeepItClean (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was not closed by an administrator. There was not proper time to allow editors to voice their opinions. Even here, within a few minutes, you have found an ADMIN who is OPPOSED to the inclusion of this article. Additionally, it is a BLP violation, since outside of the ridiculous coverage of this event, she is a private person. Wait until she is no longer a private person (if she does movies, etc), and then an article would be justified --Jkp212 (talk) 6:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep obviously notable, just because the subject does not want a Wikipedia article does not mean we have to delete it. -Icewedge (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - so far as I know, she hasn't asked for removal of her Wikipedia article. Her lawyer has issued a letter challenging fair use of her photos, however - my impression is that Ms. Dupre doesn't give anything away for free. I think the fact that her MySpace page has remained up through the publicity, and that she continues to sell her music, speaks volumes. Nesodak (talk) 06:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This woman is not going away. Wikipedia will be better off leaving this article because as you all well know people will be searching her name. There is some good information in here. She is famous now, so this is not some John Smith article. She is famous and everybody will know her better. She might pose for Penthouse or Hustler and become more famous and this will probably need to get created again if this article is deleted. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep non-trivial references in countless mainstream media articles including numerous articles profiling her. Her lawyer is entitled to his opinion but it's ridiculous to delete an article because a lawyer says she's not notable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:26, 17 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.