Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perez Hilton

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 of the debate was no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perez Hilton and Perezhilton.com

Not convinced. Looks a lot like nn vanicruftspam to me, but willing to be swayed if there is real notability. Grutness...wha? 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I original applied a PROD, and I am convinced of notability per non-trivial news sources[1], one of which is CBS news. Google Test[2] Article does need cleanup Yanksox ^(talk) 02:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. news coverage is no guarantee of notability. even CBS Bwithh 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WEB it is. Yanksox ^(talk) 03:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB asks for non-trivial published works not simply non-trivial sources. Most news media - yes, even CBS or the BBC or CNN or The New York Times (although probably not the likes of Le Monde Diplomatique... though that is not a mainstream publication) carries a ton of trivial news stories every day. Most "human interest", "funny story of the day", "style and fashion guide", "hot gossip", "cool website of the week" news article subjects are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Bwithh 05:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete news puff pieces aren't really evidence of notability. If for whatever reason this AfD fails, at least merge them, this guy isn't really important enough for one article and certainly not enough for two. Opabinia regalis 03:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge. In addition to his blogging, he is a radio contributor on some radio markets on the West Coast of the USA. Such cross media exposure is good enough for me. Rockpocket 06:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesnt need to be on Wikipedia. I would say Strong Delete to the website, not sure about Perez Hilton. {Jasrocks}
Delete both unless notability is established (blog ranking, sourced articles). ~ trialsanderrors 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable vanity. Ifnord 18:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alexa ranking is 3,103. Extraordinary Machine 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite blogger's page if possible, but delete the site info. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and Bwithh. User:Angr 21:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Alexa ranking and media coverage. Both articles need a serious rewrite. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete started off an average Joe - and I reckon he still is one... Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Well, he's more notable then an obsolete street name... and wikipedia seems to have alot of those lying around. tmopkisn ^tlka 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn, no RS. Crum375 00:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the references listed above. Notable gossip blogger. Asking for non-trivial published works on a recent gossip columnist is a bit much - notoriety through multiple trivial pieces in media that are themselves notable and widely distributed is as much as someone like that can hope for, and this one has gotten it. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is built on policies, that include having reliable sources to claims of notability. If you 'know' a person is notable, that's not enough - we need hard evidence in the form of reliable sources. Crum375 18:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what all those references listed above say. Here are just 3 of those hundreds or thousands:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "After years of wishing it were so, Lavandeira, a.k.a. gossip blogger Perez Hilton, has become famous in his own right."
Toronto Star
NYU Department of Journalism

That's plenty. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I put them in for you. Thanks, Crum375 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete vanity article. not notable. does wikipedia want to add gossip mongers as a category of achievement or notability? Joan-of-arc 20:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is not an issue here, nor the specific occupation of a person. The only issue for WP is: is the person notable enough based on reliable sources. If you read the current version of the article you'll find some fairly reliable sources that seem to make a case for notability. If you feel otherwise, you need to address these sources and explain why in your opinion they are either unreliable or don't prove notability. Thanks, Crum375 21:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further comment. both should be deleted in that puff pieces do not constitute notability. no record of hits on blog is established. web site should be a speedy delete on its own. i havent even mentioned yet the writing is below third grade level with grammar and spelling mistakes and slang usage. citations for the type of boastful and bizarre statements made in article are not given by line note. Joan-of-arc 05:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, I agree with you that as written it is unencyclopedic and your other adjectives may apply. I think reliably sourced notability has been established, but the article may be deletable on poor writing style grounds unless re-written. Crum375 12:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AnonEMouse and the citations provided. Yamaguchi先生 00:37, 30 June 2006 (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.