Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Conrad

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. Non-admin closing per WP:SNOW; clearly a bad faith nom and a violation of WP:POINT.--TBCΦtalk? 05:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Conrad

If Daniel Brandt can try and get his own article deleted, then I can do the same for this one! I'm requesting deletion on the subject's behalf. is she worth even being here?? no, was the view of people I work with. Lagunabeacher 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep has "starred" in two prominent reality shows and has been covered extensively by major media outlets. She's notable. -Big Smooth 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work for MTV, and the company that produced Laguna Beach, and per request of Ms. Conrad, we are going to get this article deleted. If Daniel Brandt "Dan the Man" can try, we can too! --Lagunabeacher 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read WP:POINT. -Big Smooth 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - borderline for notability under WP:BIO, but I have a problem with the nomination; just because the subject and/or her colleagues do not think that she merits an article does not mean that this factor should be considered in deletion discussions. None of the article fails WP:BLP as far as I can see, and the nominator cites no policies in arguing for deletion. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work with people who work with Ms. Conrad, and she has specifically requested she gets this article deleted. It's not a WP:POINT (I assume its some shorthand for attention-seeking!), it's a genuine request. If Ms.Conrad wants it deleted, she should be able to get it deleted. Look at people like Mr. Daniel "Dan the Man" Brandt, who tried, and failed. Veni, vidi, but not quite vici. --Lagunabeacher 21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominently featured on multiple television shows. --SubSeven 21:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - reason for nomination is bogus; as far as I can tell, there is no policy against pages on public figures that do not wish to have an article about them, and the nominator would have no standing even if there were. I'd think working at MTV would actually present a conflict of interest, and would mean the nominator should also avoid editing such articles. Subject meets notability guidelines. --skew-t 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Lauren wants it deleted, we will try and get it deleted. Daniel Brandt has spent ages trying to get rid of his article here, shouldn't Lauren Conrad do the same?? Well, she asked specifically that we do it, so we will. And, yes, I work for MTV, in Europe. --Carla at MTV Europe16 22:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is this user's only edit on Wikipedia.--Danaman5 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep unless we can get verifiable confirmation that Ms. Conrad herself (and not just someone claiming to speak on her behalf) doesn't want this page to exist, the point is moot (and even with such confirmation, there still would be a sizable debate). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, Daniel Brandt has tried to get his article deleted. I voted keep there, and I will do the same here. Deleting an article based on the subject's displeasure is a form of censorship.--Danaman5 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, you did something that gave you notability? Well now your in. Next time try a job at a factory Alf^Photoman 01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep choosing to star in reality TV shows indicates a desire for publicity. But are these particular shows Notable? If not , she wouldn't be, as there's no other real reason. There is a good deal of material in the article which could and should be deleted, particularly the first paragraph, either as BLP if not wanted by the subject, or as trivial COI if it is.DGG 02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first section (bio) was vandalized earlier today and was replaced with text from IMDB; it has now been returned to it's earlier state. --skew-t 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nomination is disruptive of Wikipedia, no valid reason for deletion given, serious concerns with the reasons provided. FrozenPurpleCube 04:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits of this user, which is to say, none except to nominate this, I'm going to say it is disruptive. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 7 March 2007 (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.