Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Fallin (2nd nomination)

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Fallin

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

I believe this article is merely here to seek additional publicity. While there are sources that do address the subject at hand, there is little reason to maintain a page about the subject at this time. There aren't any user names left (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of in-depth reliable sources to establish WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Little reason to maintain a page about the subject at this time" is not grounds for deletion; see WP:DONTLIKE. The footnotes in the article show that the press coverage in Oklahoma sources is extensive, there's coverage in Native American news websites, and the Washington Post profiled her as "the most interesting governor’s daughter in the country". This passes GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I doubt the article exists for positive publicity for its subject. Most of the sources are very low grade, not suitable for a BLP. The trashy, feverish, tabloid-style sources seem only interested in her because she is the daughter of someone famous. The subject may well be, or may one day become, a legitimate artist or musician making serious artistic statements - but there are no sources around at the moment that say that (to establish notability for the subject). Look at one of the non-trashy sources [1], again it really is all about her being the daughter of someone famous. Would anyone be mentioning her if she were not the daughter of a state governor? Notability is not inherited. Merely being interesting is not notability. Is there even a single critical review of the band "Pink Pony"? The supposed "controversy" involves people and groups who are even less notable than the subject and who express extremist opinions that are very marginal: it is a case of undue weight to place then in a blp article as criticism of someone. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Washington Post [2], Associated Press [3], Huffington Post [4], Indian Country Today [5], Native News Online [6], and USA Today[7] hardly fit that description. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid sources like USA Today would not be suitable for blp articles about controversies. The content of these articles is as important as the source. "Christina Fallin made headlines in 2011 after videos for a magazine showed her strolling around the governor's mansion in avant-garde fashions." Headline news! Must have been a very slow news day. This is not notability suitable for an encyclopedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources to establish notability.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 19:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it pains me to say keep, it also pains me to know that Americans are so foolishly stupid that they interested in this fool. The fact that Americans are foolish provides positive proof of her notability. It is a sad day in America and on Wikipeida. Detrimentally notable she is--Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subject of the article easily met WP:GNG. There are enough evidence of notability. Wikicology (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2014 (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.