Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Perroncel

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 delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Perroncel[edit]

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

Flunks WP:BIO and WP:PERSISTENCE. Main claim to fame is a love triangle with two football players, one of whom is already married: BLP1E written all over that. THF (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything notable can be included in the John Terry and Wayne Bridge articles. JACO PLANE • 2010-01-30 14:17

Delete fails notability due to WP:ONEEVENT and her acting career hardly passes WP:ENT. --Jimbo^[online] 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With regard to WP:BLP1E I don't think that this is applicable. She had plenty of publicity in the 2006 FIFA World Cup as one of the England WAGs and there has been other coverage. I would add that this is not someone who has been dragged unwillingly into the public eye. She actively courted publicity, for example as a lingerie model and in her attempts to launch a film career. In the court case, the high court judge described her as "famous", and British judges are not given to hyperbole. Obviously her acting career doesn't make her notable but the question is whether the coverage, taken together, is sufficient to constitute notability? We have plenty of people on here who are 'famous for being famous'. It is a close call, and I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I currently think that she just about gets over the bar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By this argument, Rachel Uchitel is notable, as is the mistress of Wade Boggs, whose name I forget twenty years after she was the center of the sports scandal world. Maybe we need WP:GROUPIE standards for determining notability of women who make a career of sleeping with famous people, since the general consensus in the journalism community is that there's going to be a lot more of this type of story post-Tiger Woods scandal. But, me, for now, I'm happy to say that none of them meet WP:EFFECT until they get famous for other reasons. THF (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, that WAGs story has precisely a quarter of a sentence about Perrocel; she's mentioned going shopping with three other WAGs and buying 500-pound sunglasses. THF (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she wouldn’t have passed the notability threshold before the current wave of publicity, I think that makes it a BLP1E. For someone being famous for being famous, I think this has to be sustained for a time (don’t think there’s been any coverage between 2006 and recently?) before we can say they definitely are. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Bridgeplayer Francium12 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addiotion to Bridegeplayer's comments, which I endorse, I note that even the High Court of England has described her as "famous", which is far more than many people with Wikipedia articles can say. As the article states, she has modelled in some leading UK magazines, plus she is going to get much much more notable in the nest few days - see, for example, tomorrow's edition of the News of the World. She definitely merits an article in her own right. Hibbertson (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete-Totally agree with Jimbo, she would like to be notable but she isn't. This one recent event is her attempt to become famous, I say let max clifford and the tabloids do their own work. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's not notable in her own right 129.11.76.229 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Take away the 'news' that she is reported to have had sex with John Terry and there is not much you can say about her apart from her shopping and a baby with Wayne Bridge. Of course you can find references to her, she is the current flavour of the month but memorable - no; notable - very much no. --Egghead06 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the News of the World publishes a lascivious story about some stupid girl who's slept with a famous bloke pretty much every Sunday, and I don't see this one as any different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN in her own right. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally in agreement with Jimbo. Not notable before on many Wiki-scales, one affair and an abortion with the England football captain doesn't push her into being "famous." Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable in her own right. Shouldn't be merged either, as it's not clear what article it should be merged to - just leave her as a redlink. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing seems to have emerged which establishes any real notability outside this one event involving John Terry. There only seems to be trivial mentions outside of the context of that situation. Therefore, delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayne Bridge#Personal life. NN in her own right, but useful redirect for navigational purposes. Any useful information turned up by ARS can be moved there as well. Ray^Talk 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I should have just been bold and redirected without bringing the AFD. I agree with Ray. THF (talk) 20:28, 31 January 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.