Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diandra Luker

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. — Cirt (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diandra Luker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - Only seems to be mentioned in the media as Michael Douglas' ex-wife but notability is not inherited. Limited filmography - production credits for only 3 films in the past 20 years so nothing of note there either. AussieLegend (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - decently known producer, famous ex-wife, mother of famous actor, i'm not saying we shouldn't expand the article, but we would need to keep it to do that right? MikaMobile (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"decently known producer" - Really? With only 2 documentaries and one other, non-notable production to her credit?
"famous ex-wife, mother of famous actor" - Notability is not inherited She needs to be notable in her own right. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much of a star but still has some notability being Michael Douglas's ex wife, mother of a famous actor. If we can keep stubs why can't we keep this one as well? Stickulus (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a biography of a living person, and we need to be much more cautious about such content. –MuZemike 07:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - MikaMobile and Stickulus have both been blocked for sockpuppetry. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly her career does not earn her a place in Wikipedia (despite the claim in the infobox that she has been active since the age of nine). So the question is whether she passes GNG on other grounds. Being a wife and mother does not bar her - lots of people have become notable on the back of a relationship or even a failed one. But all the emphasis in the coverage is about her ex-husband, and the divorce settlement itself fails as WP:EVENT. So not notable in her own right. --AJHingston (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2011 (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.