Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefanie Wilson

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. Consensus is that she's not sufficiently notable per our guidelines. The BBC article verifies her existence, but not that she's notable StarM 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Wilson[edit]

Delete No need for her page. She hasn't done anything since the show aired and probably won't. Kegzz (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, sources that are gossip magazines, AND publishing rumours from tabloids appears to violate WP:BLP in a very real way. If not deleted, it would have to be stubbed to delete all the rumours. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I removed the contentious material already. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference from BBC Radio 1, which I think is enough to establish notability. This was not "one event" but a season (or "cycle") of television programming. I would be tempted to restore the reference from the Sun newspaper at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/article1387188.ece The Sun is not a gossip magazine as such but rather a down-market tabloid newspaper and more-or-less a reliable source. The claim on the Living page about her (Living is the channel that broadcast the series) that "Stefanie is fluent in Spanish and French and conversational in Italian and Portugese." may be an exaggeration but is probably a reasonable claim to add with proper attribution to the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with the Sun wasn't the quality of the source as much as the encyclopedic value of what it was sourcing. The language stuff was removed simply for being unsourced, and it wasn't necessary to establish who she was (ie: BLP issues on unsourced info that isn't very informative) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I won't interfere with you adding back the source. I would strongly request you don't revert back the "it has been rumoured" sections simply because this *is* a BLP, and using the Sun for neutral sources is probably ok, but not really for anything nonneutral. With all the stuff going on in BLP lately, I would rather be a little conservative as long as it doesn't diminish the understanding of who the person is. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just didn't see anything there that established why an article would be warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is warranted because of the general notability guideline: Reliable sources are writing about her. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reference? If you think it's a keep you need to find more. Is every reality show contestant going to have their own page in an encyclopedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how she is notable. Especially if this AfD is being considered delete by most for non-notability, I would say that Stefanie Wilson is even less notable. (I'm not trying to compare the AfDs, but more how I look at notability, as these two people have certain similarities, and arguments for deletion of both seem very similar) Again, I'm going to have to say ChildofMidnight has said it well. ~Pip 2 andahalf 06:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2008 (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.