Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Staub: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:27, 20 July 2010

Danielle Staub

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

I think this entry should be deleted. Danielle or Beverley is actually too new to be included. Yes she was a "model" years ago and achieved some notoriety for her past transgressions but I think she is truly a flash in the pan at this stage. Reconsider her in five years if she lasts that long.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosiecat (talk • contribs) 02:32, July 15, 2010

Comment. This AfD nom is User: Moosiecat's first edit, which I think it's unusual and probably not recommended for a user's first edit to be an AfD. But whatever; the notability of the person could be called into question. This person was on a reality show. She wrote a book (actually, had it ghostwritten). Judging by this article's history, she's a lightning rod for criticism and controversy. There's more I could say that would be germane to the situation, but I'm not allowed to, so... figure it out yourselves. I will say that this article, if it continues to exist, will probably have to be protected as it is a magnet for WP:BLP violations of the semi-literate variety. Whether this person meets WP:BIO is certainly questionable. I myself am on the fence. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This page needs to merged with the "Real Housewives of New Jersey" page. There is no reason for this individual to have her own wikipedia page as she has had no strong defining moments that the other cast member have not also had. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.125.195 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD nomination was created, but never transcluded. I've done so now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The only cited sources are MySpace, her own website, and Amazon.com. That is not sufficient. Also, calling her a reality "star" seems to be a stretch. Kansan (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite a few sources other than MySpace, her own website, and Amazon.com, I'm afraid. Fox News [1] New York Daily News [2] CBS News [3] [4] [5] [6] New Jersey Star-Ledger [7][8] TV Guide [9]... there are hundreds. If she wanted publicity, she seems to have succeeded. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I took the liberty of moving the following comment from the Talk:Danielle Staub where it was mistakenly placed. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. This article really doesn't meet the WP notability guidelines. The biggest claim to fame of this person at this point is a sex tape. There are adult related wikis and also adult "imdb" style sites that she can be listed on. While a lot of reality people may have their own wikis most of them probably also have careers that will be making them more notable. This person is done.Woods01 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sex tape? What sex tape? There is no sex tape mentioned in the article. Her claim to fame is a regular role on a national TV program, and a book, and extensive coverage given to both. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is evident that a lot of people just plain don't like this person. I think our nominator and maybe some of our commentors are perhaps single-issue editors motivated by animosity toward this person. Something to perhaps consider. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GRuban. I think there is enough coverage of this person in the press to establish notability, and notability doesn't expire. Article needs work tho. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Real Housewives of New Jersey. There's nothing in here (or elsewhere) that would support having her own article. As it stands it's just a magnet for BLP violations, to boot. — e. ripley\^talk 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Weak keep per GRuban. However, this is not a clear case, and Herostratus accusing those of voting otherwise as having motivations similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is unhelpful. Kansan (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and not just because she's a prostitution whore. (Before anyone cries incivility, it was a quote from the series and the phrase links to the table-flipper who said it) Mike H. Fierce! 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:N per GRuban. --Strangerer (Talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 *Change vote to '''Weak keep''' per GRuban. However, this is not a clear case, and Herostratus accusing those of voting otherwise as having motivations similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is unhelpful. [[User:Kansan|Kansan]] ([[User talk:Kansan|talk]]) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''', and not just because she's a [[The Real Housewives of New Jersey#Teresa Giudice|prostitution whore]]. (''Before anyone cries incivility, it was a quote from the series and the phrase links to the table-flipper who said it'') [[User:Mike Halterman|Mike H.]] [[User talk:Mike Halterman|Fierce!]] 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''', meets WP:N per GRuban. --[[User:Strangerer|Strangerer]] <small>([[User_talk:Strangerer|Talk]])</small> 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)