Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson (2nd nomination)

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. The primary question editors wrestled with here revolve around WP:NPF, and WP:BLP1E: Is Macpherson a non-public figure? Does coverage of her revolve around one event or her relationship to her sister? Is the notability marginal enough that we honor a request for deletion? The precise "bar" here is undoubtably subjective, but in my view, consensus supports a finding that Macpherson's notability is sufficient outside of these issues to warrant keeping the article. In keeping this article, I would remind editors that the first part of WP:AVOIDVICTIM is still relevant to the wording of the article, and that careful attention should be paid to the appropriate inclusion, weight, sourcing and presentation of negative information. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Macpherson[edit]

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

This article was recently unprotected and recrearted by User:Nikkimaria. After is was speedy deleted as a recreation of deleleted content it was taken to Deletion Review. The rough consensus of the discussion there was that no speedy deletion criteria applied and the article should be discussed at a new AfD. So here we are. This is a procedural nomination and I myself am neutral. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comparing the article as it currently is to what it was for the prior AfD, it's quite clear that this is a much better article that better illustrates the subject's notability. There are a number of different fairly big things here that, taken individually, probably wouldn't be enough to give someone notability, but all together, as they are for what Mimi has achieved, seem to clearly exhibit a significant enough notability. Significant enough, even, that I don't even see anything borderline here, she's done a fair amount that has been recorded in reliable sources. Silver seren^C 06:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A reasonable biography for a public person. I would not include the material on drink driving as it is not relevant to her notability, unless there are sources mentioning it beyond the year 2007. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. J N 466 12:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I've self-reverted for now. Given that this was the third time, rather than a one-time occurrence, it is less clear-cut and could do with a bit of discussion. --J N 466 12:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A serial offender with little regard for her own or the public's safety, driving at 0.147 after two previous convictions? Yes, that's notable. And yes, it was still being mentioned two years after the offence.[1] WWGB (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That source is exactly what I was thinking is needed to justify that negative component. Thanks WWGB. This stuff is out there, on the public record, plain as day. Wikipedia didn't do it. Wikipedia does however present a much less sensationalist picture than google, I don't see how the subject can complain. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes GNG, as can be seen from the footnotes in the article. Cannot be described as "relatively unknown" or a "non-public figure" for the purposes of BIODELETE. This can also be seen from the sources. Such a person would not, for example, be asked for a quote by ABC news when The International Whaling Commission comes to town, get their bankruptcy or driving ban treated as a national news story, be signed as the "face" of at least two multi-national brands or be featured on the cover of Cosmopolitan [2] (that's not a modelling job, by the way - she is illustrating the cover story). Formerip (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is anyone questioning her notability? It seems that the original article was deleted due to content/privacy concerns, but that can easily be dealt with through the channels of discussion, consensus and page protection. St Anselm (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. Some of the content could perhaps be removed (per SmokeyJoe), but that can be done while retaining the article. Barque (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable and the article seems fairly well-written. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only after substantial removal of non-RS claims and claims of no significance to the person ("earthdive" is not RS for example, and "supporting" something is not on its face a notable fact, 3rd DUI is only mentioned in press because of Elle, not because of Mimi, etc.) In short - a mess of a BLP which might be salvaged. Collect (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, we don't remove information based on why the data is found in a RS. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything seems to be sourced. Sources are plentiful, not a non-public person so BLPDEL doesn't apply. The bankruptcy and DUI are well-sourced. Article seems quite reasonable actually. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If everything is well sourced and the Untrue (but reliably sourced) rumours don't start creeping back in. Would certainly suggest Semi-Protection from the outset, with potential to fully protect if BLP problems arise again. Possibly suggest Jimbo touches base with the subject again and ensures that they are aware the article is being reinstated but that it should be better managed this time around. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article looks to be in pretty good shape with plenty of sources and no BLP violations.--Stv Fetterly (Edits) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public figure, arguably a household name in Australia. Sources in the article demonstrate that the subject clearly meets the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any notoriety she may retain in Australia is as a result of her sister and/or a series of BLP-type issues. Never been a "household name" and would have almost zero name recognition now. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I don't know about that, before the discussion on these articles started, I knew of her as "Elle's lesser known sister," in much the same way as Antonia Kidman. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Enough sources in the article to demonstrate she passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She has marginal notability to limit mention in other articles, not a separate article. Notability is wp:NOTINHERITED from famous sister Elle Macpherson. Being named one of 30 successful business women, then declaring bankruptcy really cancels that claim. As for being a contestant on a TV show, and only ranking third, well, that qualifies for being mentioned within an article about that TV show, unlike a full-time judge on the show, being top-billed for the TV show. Being a TV commercial spokesperson is not enough. I understand that people view a person who is 30 on a list, or 3rd in TV competition show as separately notable, but really, it is enough to mention them in articles about the list, the TV show, or the endorsed cosmetics. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Being named one of 30 successful business women, then declaring bankruptcy really cancels that claim". That might be a valid viewpoint, but it doesn't cancel her notability, because it is not the only thing her notability rests on and notability, in any case, is not temporary. Formerip (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mistaken notability is "temporary" as when a person wins a gold medal but is disqualified, then that is no longer notability due to a major win; however, if the retracted gold medal becomes a long-term controversy, then that could lead to separate notability. Hence, being named a top businesswoman, and then declaring bankrupcy, looks like a case of "mistaken notability". Meanwhile, being on some magazine covers is too temporary to confer separate notability. Just put her name in a list of people on the cover in each magazine article. -Wikid77 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "mistaken notability" as you describe it. Someone who wins a gold medal at the Olympics is notable, even if that medal is later rescinded. Notability is not temporary. Her achievements, as documented in reliable sources, are more than enough to demonstrate notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her ~~notoriety~~ notability goes beyond simply being Elle's sister. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Her claim to fame is being a relative of a famous person and making the gossip pages in connection with that. To quote Clara Peller: "Where's the beef???" Carrite (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the owner of a whale watching company, being the director of a promotions firm and three property companies, being involved in advertising with a number of different campaigns, being a radio presenter, being the spokesperson for a number of different environmental organizations, along with her work with the Humane Society. Individually, sure, they wouldn't confer notability, but all together, they add up to a number of different accomplishments throughout her life that have been noted by reliable sources and give her a fairly significant amount of notability. Silver seren^C 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know, like many people, she has had successes, but major failures as well, and those also go into the article. She requested deletion of the article and that had been successful, but now people want to turn that into a failure as well. Why do you hate her so much, to deny her success in removing the article? -Wikid77 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bizarre interpretation. It's got nothing to do with "hating her"; indeed, having a fair and balanced article about her among the top GHits will cancel out some of the tripe out there. Her successes make her notable; her failures do not cancel her notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article sufficiently demonstrates her notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal notability - plenty of tabloid titillation reports coatracked on the back of her sister. - Article has previously been used to collect and publish all the trivia and personal details about her private life and for that reason the subject previously requested its deletion - I support her request and my interpretation of the wiki foundation/en wikipedia's aims and ambitions supports it also. Youreallycan 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yrc, I agree she has "marginal notability" to be mentioned in articles related to her activities, and her life is connected with many tabloid incidents that would enter a separate bio page, as the article to be deleted. A BLP bio-article is a "slippery slope" where the positives get offset by high-profile negatives, plus exposing parents, family, hometown, and education. Perhaps redirect her name to a list of noted Australian businesswomen, since she has accomplishments beyond being "Elle's sister". It is enough to be in lists of marginally-notable people. -Wikid77 10:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I said in the previous AFD which resulted in deletion, this fails WP:BLP1E; and I completely agree with Jimbo that WP:BLP#Presumptino in favor of privacy applies here; and we should definitely avoid further vicitimization of the subject, especially considering that the notability here "stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" and per WP:BIO#Family Dreadstar ☥ 20:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we're clear, which "1E" are you referring to? Being on the cover of multiple magazines? Winning multiple business awards? Being a spokeswoman for multiple organizations? Appearing in multiple television shows? Being a media personality and environmental activist? Lots of choices, all supported by sources...and I don't see how any of these reasons for her to be notable either victimize her or don't result from her own actions. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's not a 'high profile figure', and the main component of her notability is who she's related to. As I stated in the previous AFD, being a "celebrity" does not confer Notability, it's the same thing as being "famous", or "popular", which are not primary criteria needed in order to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. As for being a 'noted environmentalist', yes she's done some excellent work, but there is a very high bar that must be met in order to meet WP Notability requirements, as can be seen by this list of Notable environmentalists. The awards, while nice, are not notable themselves, neither are the sources of those awards. And the TV/radio appearances are also of insufficient notablity. All of these combined do not confer sufficient notability for us to have an article on the subject; what pushes it is the famous sister, which goes against WP:BLP as to conferring notability.

Even if one believes these do provide sufficient notability, I say we still err on the side of "do no harm" and delete this article. Why do we need it? It's not encylopedic, if we take away the titillating, tabloid aspects of the content, there's nothing to base an article on. Additionally, the subject herself has asked for the article's deletion, and with her "marginal notability" as mentioned by several editors above, I think we should respect Mimi's wishes and delete it. Dreadstar ☥ 20:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Titillation"? Which article are you reading? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, while, yes, she's related to someone more famous than her, she's still best known for her involvement in the whale-watching enterprise, since she "pioneered the Hervey Bay whale-watching industry". Silver seren^C 22:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "best known for" isn't criteria that meets WP:N. Or the so-called "pioneering" of the Harvey Bay Whale Watching Industry, whatever that means. In the end, it's obviously the "Sister of Supermodel Elle McPherson" which is the source of that so-called "nobility", there's nothing Notable about running a whale-watching business in Queensland. Do we have articles on all owners of whale-watching businesses in Queensland and everywhere else? The core of her notability is her famous sister - which is not-N. Dreadstar ☥ 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best known for means that that's where the core of one's notability is going to come from, not from something else. And we should have articles on whale-watching business owners who have received significant coverage in news sources for that practice. Which Mimi has very obviously done. Silver seren^C 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And she's 'best known" for having a famous sister, no two ways about it. Without that, there would be no basis for her so-called 'notability". This violates BLP. Dreadstar ☥ 04:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I commented and voted delete on the first RfD and I don't see that anything has changed since then: The subject has become known in every context because of her sister. She is not notable per Wikipedia in her own right. Why has she received coverage for her whale-watching business and the probably thousands of other such business owners have not? Because she is the sister of some one who is notable. How many drivers are stopped for drinking under the influence every day, and why did newspapers pick up this particular story? Because the driver is related to a notable person. Her notoriety which has come out of a family relationship should not be confused with notability. And its unfortunate that her life has been scrutinized in this way because of her family relationship. Perpetuating this is very tabloid like. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.(olive (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps whale-watch company was notable, not her: Yes, olive, I follow your reasoning, and I even suspect that any notability was actually for the "whale-watching company" as related to tourism awards (for the company), while there were no similar tourism activities by the person. I am thinking an article about the company, not the person, would make more sense as a notable topic, as to how it impacted the tourism business, and in that article, mention Mimi Macpherson as the 1995 leader, not the 2007 3-DUI violator required by a balanced BLP article. Likewise, for the roles as spokesperson, to be short phrases within any articles about the products endorsed, in lists of other people promoting those companies, not all collected as a coatrack of puffery to fill an article with activities as a celeb-resume. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least two of the tourism awards were specifically awarded to her, as an individual, and the business awards (and associated cover shot) were certainly for her personally. If you feel the current article is a "coatrack of puffery", you are of course free to improve it, but many above would seem to disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously and clearly notable, well-documented in dozens of reliable sources. Does she have a famous sister? Yes. Does that mean she cannot be notable in her own right? No, of course not - Emily Bronte is not only notable because of Charlotte. She owned a multi-million-dollar enterprise for which she won multiple awards. She was featured on the cover of two magazines, including one in which she was named a top young Australian businesswoman. She was named national businesswoman of the year by a national organization. She has been the "face" of two companies, and has acted as a spokewoman for several more. She has appeared in multiple television shows. She is a radio and television personality. She is frequently sought out for quotes on environmental issues, and has lobbied extensively on the topic. The article is well-sourced and balanced, and the subject clearly passes WP:GNG, as demonstrated by the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronte sisters were all highly significant writers in the history of English literature, and each was highly notable in her own right. I really can't see a parallel to the McPherson sisters; that's a stretch. (olive (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

We shouldn't confuse significant to the individual to notability.

A string of such significant but non notable events does not equal notability.

As an aside:The section on DUI is highly inappropriate in a BLP article . Again while a DUI is significant in an individual's life highlighting the details in one of our articles is wrong and can help damage the LP in their real life. (olive (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Agree, the comparison is a stretch. A closer comparison would be the Austen sisters, Jane Austen & Cassandra Austen.

Jane_Austen has been viewed 123587 times in the last 30 days.

Cassandra_Austen has been viewed 2550 times in the last 30 days.

One is much more notable than the other, but this in not a reason to no cover the lesser. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not comparing a supermodel to Jane Austen one of the giants in the history of English literature are we? And I'd question the notability of Cassandra Austen. She is mentioned in reference to her famous sister and the sources on her are weak. Certainly in the academic world she is not notable except in relation to her sister. My point is that if an article on Cassandra Austen is appropriate it is because of the relationship she had to Jane, and to Jane's immense stature. A supermodel doesn't have that kind of historical/literary stature.(olive (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Strong Keep - Passes WP:GNG without any reasonable doubt. Falls outside WP:BLP1E thanks to her multiple achievements. --M4gnum0n (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i have trouble finding references about her that arent prefaced, "Mimi Macpherson, sister of Elle". the gossip industry and its perversion of even generally legitimate media to leach into personal lives for titillating scandal is frankly appalling. And wikipedians should be ashamed of joining such company. This is a clear case where WP:IAR actually WOULD be a benefit to the encyclopedia.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The preface is the problem with any familial relationship where one (or multiple) siblings is better known, even if you're Danni Minogue there are enough news articles out there labelling you "Kylie's Sister" or "Sister of Kylie" and heaven help you if you happen to be a Baldwin or Osmond. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who WASNT the sister of Elle who had a small business and a couple of DUI convictions would have an article??? Puh-eeeese. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who had a small business, got some national publicity with it, some coverage in the news of substance abuse problems - also you forgot Radio Presenter, appeared on on Reality TV show, worked on documentaries for the Discovery Channel? You must be thinking of Chris Richardson - no relationship to Elle MacPherson... Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or Billy Lane? WWGB (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famous sister... business woman... done for DUI. I was thinking Khloé Kardashian. Boy, was I way off. Hawkeye7 (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - Marginal notability, best known for famous relative, has requested deletion in the past == delete. Coverage is due entirely to her last name. What this reminds me of a bit is the discussion for Serene Branson, where a bunch of busybody editors go scrape and trawl the internet for every scrappy quibble of errata to try to build up faux notability. This is the kind of thing that brings this project into disrepute; a cavalier, tabloid approach to article writing. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's distressing her. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~ Passes GNG with flying colours, notability has easily been corroborated with the sources provided. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 13:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability not marginal enough for the discretionary delete. Sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a recreation but a new article which clearly shows notability sufficient for inclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient independent references, from various sources and over extended time, to satisfy WP:BASIC. WWGB (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2012 (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.