Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Gastineau

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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Gastineau[edit]

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

This is a very poorly sourced BLP of a non-notable professional athlete's wife, and model's mother. Notability is not inheritend, and the three references currently cited provide nothing more than brief mentions of the article subject. In fact, one is little more than a divorce decree from her famous husband. Others provide either brief quotes from, or brief mentions of, the article subject. This simply fails our notability requirements on multiple levels. Unit Anode 18:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are numerous athletes' spouses who are notable enough for an article of their own, but this isn't one of them. Blueboy 96 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. She is sourced as being the star of a network reality show, which handily satisfies WP:ENT. The TV show and surrounding publicity are about an event that would not normally be notable, being the (ex) wife of a famous person. But that's what reality shows do, they make a public event out of everyday life. The article is, and should be, about her prominence in that regard and not an in-universe account of her private life as revealed by the show. We cover reality shows just like we cover everything else, we report on what the sources have to say about things. For comparison's sake the situation is analogous to Sharon Osbourne's. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Gastineau Girls. True, notability is not inherited, nor does there appear to be any non-inherited notability abound either. JBsupreme (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article was originally deleted in the Jan 20 mass deletion, and I requested its restoration and sourced what currently appears in the article. There is additional information in the prior history that I haven't gotten around to adding back yet, as we triage the mass of articles which have been deleted and prodded with little care. Unfortunately, the nominator has apparently not followed WP:BEFORE in making this nomination. The subject of this article has been subject to press coverage for most of the past 25 years, to varying degrees; she actually is also a quite successful businesswoman, though that hasn't been added back to the article yet. FYI, for what its worth, this was also a fairly popular article before its deletion, e.g., it got 4330 hits in Nov. 09.--Milowent (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Wikidemon, meets WP:ENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 22:12, February 1, 2010
Keep per Wikidemon, star of national cable network television show is pretty notable. --GRuban (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Were she just a person divorced from another famous person, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. But she's the star of a nationally shown program which is about her, no less, and the article is more than adequately sourced.--Father Goose (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm^(Talk) 20:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough for wikipedia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Believe me, IDONTLIKEIT either, but she is clearly notable per WP:BIO, and the article now has multiple, independent, reliable sources to confirm that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wine Guy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Oops, sorry. Wine Guy~Talk 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that there are sources independent of the subject, and that they cover the subject rather than her spouse, I think we have enough to satisfy policy. It is thin, granted, but it is sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may not be the type of biography that we prefer, but per WP:BIO it is notable enough. RFerreira (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the most critical bio in the project, but if having a series about you doesn't make you notable, then I don't know what does. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep I'd also like to see notability criteria altered to leave out celebrities like this. But until and unless we do that all we can do is insist that like this they are properly referenced - I've already semi protected it due to past vandalism. (I was the one who restored this for referencing, and would request that those voting keep consider adding this to their watchlist because of past vandalism) Ϣere SpielChequers 14:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was notable enough to be given her own reality television show(along with her daughter), and has ample mention on Google news search [1]. She isn't just mentioned as being the ex-wife of the NFL guy. Dream Focus 20:23, 13 February 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.