Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Danczuk

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Danczuk

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A former local councillor who tittilated the tabloids by sharing selfies on line. No personal notability, could all be covered adequately in the article on her former husband from whom any notability is inherited anyway Bledwith (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment There are WP:RS sources in the article which refer to her, but only in the context of her relationship to her former husband and a brief period of tabloid fame. I don't think she is GNG Bledwith (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is from the nominator - Bledwith I originally read this as from a different editor, it would be worth you making this really explicit, or merging it with your nomination. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not qualify for articles just for being borough councillors, or even because their name gets mentioned in coverage of their more notable spouse — but the only sourcing here which is about her, for the purposes of establishing that she might be significantly more notable than most other borough councillors, is just a brief blip of tabloid coverage that just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a subject of enduring public interest. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:BASIC. I'm not sure if other rs were looked for WP:BEFORE, but they are there and I will add some. She is not notable as a local councillor, as an MP's ex-wife, a general celebrity, reality TV contestant or child abuse campaigner, but for all of them combined. There are numerous reliable sources in this - BBC News, the Guardian, Telegraph etc., all the sources I'd go to for rs on living British people have full articles on her. They mention her ex-husband but he isn't the main point of those articles.

She meets BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. WIll she be of enduring public interest, who knows? But she meets our minimum criteria based on the coverage. This also shouldn't be at AFD as there are clear WP:ATDs. Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these RS articles that have significant coverage of her as the main point? Everything I've seen its in the context of her as Simon Danczuk's wifeBledwith (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the sources in the article - there are lots of reliable sources and the majority have her as the main focus, not her ex-husband. Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad nomination. There are many RS's out there not only in connection with her partner. Meets WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, Karen Danzcuk is a a tabloid personality, but is she only, a tabloid personality? No, as described in multiple RS's, she also had a political career as well as being involved in support groups for child abuse victims. See the following: 1 2 3 4. As such she passes WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once a subject is notable it is always notable. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfied with Boleyn (talk) points. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2019 (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.