Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Chitty

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 keep. Those sources look sufficient. Shimeru 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Chitty

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

Previously failed PROD. Unreferenced BLP for almost 2 years. Barely notable person, with very few personal details, at best should be a redirect to something a Paul Simon related page. The-Pope (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Unreference BLP, and fails WP:ANYBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyMcClean (talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now, I know it's an unreferenced BLP, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. Having read WP:BLP fairly closely, it gives a lot of weight to the fact that there should be nothing contentious in a BLP, and I don't think there is here. WP:BASIC says A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Now, if you type "Kathy Chitty" into Google you come up with lots of Paul Simon sites, all of which seem to verify what is written here, and which I would say counts as multiple independent sources. Furthermore, I think if anybody has a copy of this book I think we could put in a reliable source; there are also many other books about Simon which might provide enlightnment (and which I also don't have). Fundamentally you know, I don't like seeing an article which many wikieditors have worked on for nearly two years deleted. Chris (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Absolutely not a speedy situation here. Better get some footnotes on there, though. I found the article interesting and the subject inclusion-worthy. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are a couple of viewable books at Google Books that appear to verify much of the content of the article.[1][2]. The content certainly seems worthwhile for inclusion somewhere. It's not clear to me, though, if the appropriate place is a separate article or at Paul Simon.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are apparently sources. . Simon is a significant enough artist that people who are the inspiration of his music can be notable DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having recently been involved in a borderline notable (from a non-Australian viewpoint) person was deleted primarily because she contacted Jimbo to do so (and I will admit that it did have some (reliably sourced) tabloid-like negative aspects), I wonder if having (unreferenced) comments like "Kathy is a very private person; all attempts by the press to cajole information or her whereabouts out of Simon have failed" and "Kathy was quite shy and wanted no part of the success and fame that awaited Simon" should be taken into account. I'm would surmise that the subject wouldn't really be happy with having the article - but probably doesn't have Jimbo's contact details or know that the article exists. At very least any unreferenced personal details must be removed, but I'll wait until the AfD is decided.The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is a person who people know of, even though they have never met her, talked or listened to her, or seen her. Even though the information contained in the article about Kathy has been public for decades, no one is known to have contacted her or intruded her privacy. Yet Paul Simon has million of fans all over the world who at some point of their interest in Paul Simon's biography want to know a little more about the Kathy of 'Kathy's song' and 'America'. I think Wikipedia should be a source for these people, and should care to write an article that respects Kathy's desire to shield her privacy. I think the present article does just that. A definite Keep.

Mcouzijn (talk) 23:39, 23 August 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.