Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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.

Closing statement: The guideline Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion." That's what we're left with here- we have plenty of editors on both sides- in fact, slightly more on a numerical basis arguing for keeping this article. We have a person whose notability many good faith editors disagree about... and a woman in the middle who just wants it to go away.

If it wasn't for that request, this would be a pretty easy no consensus close. As much as we are morally obligated to keep BLP's neutral and reliable, we are also obligated to do no harm with them. In light of the subject's request, and the decent arguments made that the subject is, at best, borderline notable, the result is delete and I can already see another week watching DRV in my future. Courcelles (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Macpherson

edit
Mimi Macpherson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mimi Macpherson is the sister of Elle Macpherson. But for that single fact (BLP1E) virtually none of her life story would have been in the press. Because little is known of her other than tabloid gossip that has surfaced around unfortunate incidents in her life, it is not possible to write a well-balanced biography of her.

Our guideline is clear that "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. " (See WP:BIO#Family.)

A look in google suggests that she is mostly famous for a sex tape alleged to be of her, which she did not release. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy strongly suggests that we should avoid vicitimization and that "This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions."

Finally, the subject of this article has requested deletion after an extensive discussion of the possibility of improvement.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Elle's article is entirely inappropriate and would give greater emphasis on the negative aspects. Gnangarra 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would the subject have been any more notable than the many, many other tourism operators in Hervey Bay other than for sharing some genes with a supermodel? While there is no end of sources, the overwhelming majority of them would refer to the subject as "the sister of Elle Macpherson". Her sister is the one who is notable, the coverage of the subject is dependent entirely on Elle's reflected notability. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, her bankruptcy was not particularly large or interesting and would not have been in the newspapers save for her being Elle's sister. It is not sufficient to establish independent notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
response no doubt that her initial rise to fame was becuase of her sister, but her sister wasnt the reason for her recieving the Business Womens award, nor was the cause of her bankruptcy. If memory serves me correctly with the businesses both sisters put effort into distancing themselves from each other endeavours. Her other escapades with the exception of that video gained coverage because she has a tabloid media profile which sells, its not dependent entirely on Elles notability. BLP issues aside deletion of the article will only see recreation, merge into Elle's article is entirely inappropriate and would give greater emphasis on the negative aspects. Gnangarra 06:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts I missed the issue of Jimbo having direct contact with her and her request for the article to be removed I'd support a Deletion/recreation to remove the problematic history that is cause for concern. Gnangarra 06:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. But there becomes a point whereby a person receives significant coverage in their own right and is thus separately notable, even though the person wouldn't have received that coverage if not for their relationship to the notable person. See Bristol Palin, etc. In my view, Mimi falls into that category. Per Rebecca, we have ways to deal with BLP problems that usually don't involve deleting a whole article.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure your use of Bristol Palin adds to your argument, aside from it being a textbook case of WP:WAX. The Palin article, to my mind, is a prime example of an article that should be nothing more than a redirect to the person who is actually notable. i.e her mother. What has Bristol Palin ever done that is of notice in her own right? What coverage has Bristol had about her in her own right rather than as the daughter of Sarah? The answer to both these questions is, of course, nothing. The same answers to the same questions apply to the subject of this article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trust that I'm not using Bristol Palin as an argument for why this article should be included, but an example of how people can be manifestly notable despite being nothing more than relatives of notable people. But as you would disagree with Palin being included, so be it.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell the difference between WP:WAX and using another example as illustrative of how one's argument plays out in practice? You're highlighting four words in my argument and whacking an inappropriate essay link to it to try to discredit the actual argument I'm making. Would you feel better if I struck the mention to Bristol Palin? Because my argument would be none the worse for it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly enough notoriety in Australia (much of it self-propagated) to be included. The suggestion of deletion almost smacks of cultural insensitivity. I don't think "I want to be left alone" is a criteria for deletion as this would destroy the integrity of the projectPorturology (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - cultural insensitivity? I don't even know what that means in this context. I might understand if you argued for delete on the grounds that a "keep" vote amounts to cultural insensitivity to the plight of women victimized by tabloid press and a public morbidly interested in celebrities. In any event, I don't know of anyone who is arguing that "I want to be left alone" is a criteria for deletion. There is a longstanding tradition - quite valid - of appropriately considering the pain that a bad biography is causing for the victim as a part of our deliberations.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - I was just reflecting on the "much of it self-propagated" comment, and wanted to explain why I think that's not valid and not actually true. The details of her life that are known publicly that people are regarding as notable are all in and of themselves routine and not notable. If you had trouble with DUI, if you filed for bankruptcy, if you were victimied by having an alleged sex tape of you posted to the Internet - none of those things would hit the newspapers at all, "self-propagated" or not. None of those things are notable. None of this would be in the press at all, for any reason, save for her being the sister of a celebrity. That doesn't make her a celebrity of independent notability.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I certainly agree that we should consider the pain that a bad biography causes its subject, Jimbo, but I'd hardly say this article, in its present state, could possibly be classed as such. She's pretty close to a household name, and the article has all of one dispassionate sentence describing a DUI charge, at the bottom of the article, and taking up less than 1/10 of the article, with the remainder doing an okay (if not brilliantly written) job of documenting her actual career. Considering that, this is a particularly bizarre example to jump on the soapbox about. Rebecca (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. - I agree, and she agrees, that the article is already much improved. However, it seems pretty clear to me that what remains does nothing to establish notability. That she is said to be "pretty close to a household name" does nothing to establish notability in the sense of Wikipedia, since the press coverage is virtually all only existing due to her relationship to her sister. I don't think anyone can plausibly argue that we'd have a biography about her, save for that one fact alone.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree she may not have reached the level of media coverage that she did if it was not for her sisters notability, but its her actions that have sustained her presence within Australian Media. Gnangarra 16:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • more In 2001 she was a front person for Planet Arkpay per view, and a deckhand injured on her whale watching boat was named young Queenslander of the Year 2001. Interestingly in Sep 13 2006 the Courier Mail [1] wrote an article calling her a pioneer of the whale watching industry and pointed out that she was immediately recognised. Deletion isnt a resolution as the article will be continually recreated every time she appears in media release in Australia, something she has done every year since 1995. Noteriety Notability through 15 years of media coverage WP:GNG has been met....Identifable person in a crowd. TV personality on Discovery channel, radio personality in Queensland, model for Evolve Makeup, and final word "WHALE conservation luminary Mimi MacPherson" Warwick Daily news October 2009[2]. What ever is used to define Notability she has it in spades, Gnangarra 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I look at all that and I still think that there is nothing there that would lead to notability other than for her being the sister of Elle. There are hundreds of people involved in the whale watching industry, the subject's role was only of interest in all of that insofar as she was Elle's sister. If it wasn't for an alleged videotaped episode, she would have been out of sight and out of mind for some time now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re:"much of it self-propagated" - I missed this comment earlier but it deserves a response. There is an unfortunate habit here on Wikipedia to conclude that some of the subjects of our articles somehow have a lesser right to protection under our BLP guidelines if they are perceived to have actively sought a public profile. While it may not be intended as such, this smacks of a "She it had coming" or "She deserves it" attitude that we would deplore if it was used as a rule for how to treat people in general society. Regardless of any perception of self-promotion, we owe the living subjects of our articles a duty of care that is not somehow lessened by their earlier actions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - by "self propagated" I meant that she has become a celebrity through her own actions rather than relying on her sister - which I believed to be what this discussion is about. Having said that: if a person has achieved the level of notability to justify a WP article - it would be inappropriate to censor that article by only including those things which are perceived to be morally good, although there are some things, like the tape, that are best left unsaid for the feelings of a living subjects. Where the line is drawn is a difficult one. I suspect that MMs DUI and bankruptcy, like Paris Hilton's traffic offences, would be included in her biography if it is kept. The real point of this discussion, however, is if she is notable. I am surprised that you say she is only notable for the tape - scanning the 42 articles about her in the Daily Telegraph in the last 18 months and the 177 articles about her in the SMH, I could find only 1 reference about the tape and that was by Miranda Devine. Certainly many but not most articles start with "Mimi, the sister of..." but the articles are about Mimi - what society events she has attended, her TV career, her businesses and yes, her bankruptcy. I think 219 articles in the only daily papers in Sydney indicates significant coverage by secondary sources that are: reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject and this more than satisfies WP:BASIC. So I can get an idea of the basis of your argument about deleting MM and Andy Muirhead - do you consider that Antonia Kidman and Adriana Xenides should be deleted? Porturology (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time I read the article the section on the tape had been removed - how is this now a bad biography and what does Ms Macpherson object to?. I would hazard a guess that in a survey of Australians most would have heard of her and not just because of her sister or the tape. She spent a large part of the 90s and 00s gracing the social pages and gossip magazines as what some people call a "B list" celebrity - Are you calling for all "victims of tabloids" to be removed - if so I think we will be spending a lot of time on AFD- what about JonBenét Ramsey as a random example?. Her family have been "victims of the tabloid press and a public morbidly interested in celebrities". The fact that Mimi Macphersom is unknown to most Americans is not a reason for deletion. Porturology (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Porturology (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo. Public awareness of her begins and continues in most part because of her sister. We shouldn't confuse notoriety with notability. Notability depends on reliable sources notoriety doesn't. Per WP:Notability multiple, compliant sources are generally expected. Nor should we make a decision based on past mistakes on Wikipedia, if mistakes they are, in regards to the comment above on tabloids. More mistakes even more cleanup. (olive (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • This !vote doesn't make any sense. The article has multiple, compliant sources, with a veritable ton of further sources should someone decide to flesh the article out even further. There isn't a single tabloid piece cited or mentioned in the article. This discussion would be profoundly aided if some of the fly-through voters actually read the damned article. Rebecca (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to be notable a person has to do something notable. The GNG is not a guideline that says we must have an article on every person that technically meets it. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' as a local Australian, I have seen her on and off in news and entertainment. Yes she is Elle's sister, but has hosted (IIRC) TV programs and other bits and pieces along the way. I have not heard of any scandal, and my approach would be removal and semi-protection (or Pending changes or whatever). Article quality is no grounds for deletion. Note to closing admin, some of the keepers are Australian editors who are more familiar with the subject matter. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets notability. Our rules for BLPs, if correctly applied, should ensure any questionable stuff stays out. Orderinchaos 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being the relative of someone famous can often result in notability - see Barack Obama, Sr. which is mainly based on Dreams from my Father. Nobody would have heard of this man if his son had not assumed the presidency. This not a case of WP:BLP1E - like it or not, deserved or not, there are multiple secondary sources about multiple events which have Macpherson as their primary subject. Also, it's been a few years now since the height of her fame - most of the news hits probably predate Gnews. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, as with the Bristol Palin example used above, I would ask two questions. What has Obama Sr. ever done that is of notice in his own right? What coverage has Obama Sr. had about him in his own right rather than as the father of the President of the USA? The answer to both these questions is, of course, nothing. Obama Sr. is a WP:BLP1E candidate for the same reasons as the subject of this article - they are both known for one "event" - having a famous relative. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember Mimi from seeing her on foxtel, and the whale-watching as well as the planet ark spokesperson stuff. She may well have been initially benefitted from being Elle's sister but had picked up her own profile afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Household name in Australia. Quick Google search of The Sydney Morning Herald brings up hundreds of hits from one newspaper alone. Another Google search of Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd papers is similar. You've got hundreds of reliable sources. Why would Australian newspapers have hundreds of articles if the person is not notable? That is clearly enough to settle this discussion.--Lester 03:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no dispute that the subject has been covered widely in reliable sources. I would argue that the nature of the coverage has been mere prurient interest based on the fact that she is the sister of a supermodel and not based around any notability of the subject herself. I am not sure pointing to quantities of articles addresses this argument at all and therefore, at least in my opinion, does not settle this argument. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean, there's no notablility surrounding her. She's been a TV presenter on numerous national TV programs in Australia. That should be notability enough. Are we going to delete the other TV presenters because they haven't done anything else? The above Google news searches reveal that the articles are about Mimi, not Elle. Yes, they always mention Elle (that's inescapable with 2 famous sisters), but the subject of the articles is primarily about Mimi. That proves public interest in a notable person. Otherwise, the alternative is to delete hundreds of Wikipedia articles on famous brothers and sisters, for example Paris Hilton's sister Nicky Hilton. There are hundreds more like that. Can't just choose non-US ones. --Lester 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme predjudice - Clearly fails BLP1E, just because she's related to someone famous doesn't mean she's famous. I also agree with Jimbo, right to privacy here is most important. And for the record Lester, using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at AFD is not a great argument, or a way to support one! I've found that out the hard way :) BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 04:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which one event would that be, TV Presenter, Radio Personality, Business Women of the Year, Model for Evolve, or was that "WHALE conservation luminary Mimi MacPherson" Warwick Daily news October 2009[3] all of which are sourced without reference to her sister, ? Gnangarra 05:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does generally help, if one is to assess the notability of a living person, and one is not familiar with said living person, to have actually read the bleeding article. "Just because she's related to someone famous doesn't mean she's famous" is a particularly stupid thing to say when she is famous (and in several fields, too), regardless of how she became so; while obviously, most relatives of famous people are not notable, equally obviously, this person is. Rebecca (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets notability. Have read most of the points for and against - believe that whilst her initial notability was as the sister of Elle, she has become notable for other issues, such as being a TV presenter, Environmental spokesperson, receiving Business Womens award etc. I have also checked numerous articles and whilst some refer to her as Elle's sisters there are many others that simply refer to her role as TV personality etc. Article has sufficent independent references to warrant its retention. Dan arndt (talk) 05:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She's a household name in Australia, and has been for about a decade. It's true that relatives of celebrities are not inherently notable, but that's because there are millions of people who are related to celebrities who never receive any sustained media coverage, and thus don't need a Wikipedia article about them. This particular person, however, has received sustained media coverage and has consistently been in the public eye. It doesn't matter that she's never done anything extraordinary, and people are only interested in her because of her sister. The fact is, they are interested in her, much more so than most celebrities' siblings.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.134.36 (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a newspaper which caters to the public's interest , and fame and public interest do not a notable person make. Perhaps, if the multiple sources that establish notability could be cited here that might help clarify matters. I'm not seeing that kind of source, myself. There's a difference in sources that support content and information once notability has been determined, and sources that establish that notability in the first place. What I'm seeing so far are sources that supply information to someone whose notability per the sources ( not popular opinion or public awareness) was and is related to her sister, and whose other pursuits are not notable. (olive (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sorry, I am not getting your meaning. There are 20 or more compliant references on the page. She has hosted TV programs, had a successful business and been awarded national business awards. She has been a household name in Australia for 15-20 years partly because of her business pursuits and partly because she is a "celebrity" in her own right. Whatever you think of the moral value of "celebrity" status it certainly overlaps with notability. (Much as I dislike drawing comparisons, I feel she is more notable that Bindi Irwin or Antonia Kidman both of whom have independent careers despite having more famous relatives). On WP:ENT alone she qualifies as notable and this is sourced. What criteria for notability and what references would you like provided to salvage the page? - it should be possible to provide suitable references. Porturology (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We routinely add articles about men who won Australian Businessman of the Year award, such as complete unknowns like Robert Champion de Crespigny, while wanting to delete any woman who is awarded Australian Businesswoman of the Year, like Mimi? --Lester 07:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, sorry Jimbo, normally I'm quite happy to use BLP1E for persons of marginal notability, but appearing on the front page of a nationally circulated magazine, and having a swag of awards and recognition as a notable businesswoman puts her clearly over the line of notability. Fix the BLP violations by all means, but deletion is not appropriate here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - The argument to delete here seems to be that she might not have become well known if she didn't have a famous sister. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter how she became notable, it only matters that she is. Which I think has been demonstrated more than adequately. Frickeg (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Household name in Australia. Ours not to reason why. Hesperian 06:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For whatever reason, she does handily pass our general notability guidelines. Buddy431 (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, virtually all the references either associate the subject with her sister, or mention the sex-tape or the bankruptcy, which may give the subject some notoriety, but not notability. The article draws from the sister's notability, while feeding into further BLP:Victimization of the subject. The subject is not notable per WP:BIO, which states: "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." All the sources are just fluff, nothing significant, interesting or unusual that’s worthy of notice beyond the fact that she has a famous sister. Sure, she may appear in multiple reliable sources, but none of those appearances are notable per WP:BIO. Not even the Women's Network Australia “Australian Business Woman of the Year” and Cosmo's "Australia's top 30 Businesswoman" awards provide her with sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, if we can even source those outside her own self-published website claim. The article's sources merely support non-notable trivia that isn’t worthy of notice in an encyclopedia, it’s not significant or unusual enough to be recorded in an encyclopedia. She may be “famous” or “popular” in Australia, but she isn’t Notable and the article should be deleted. Dreadstar ☥ 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You could omit the Elle relationship and the sex tape and this article would still satisfy notability. Mimi is a noted environmentalist, a radio and television personality and won several national awards. She may not like the negative aspects of the article (and "someone" took this up with Jimbo), but Geoffrey Edelsten, Marcus Einfeld and Glenn Wheatley no doubt dislike their articles as well. And that's no reason to delete. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable presenter, businesswoman and environmentalist. Her celebrity status was enough to get her a place on It Takes Two. StAnselm (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: being a "celebrity" does not confer Notability, it's the same thing as being "famous", or "popular", which are not primary criteria needed in order to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. As for being a 'noted environmentalist', yes she's done some excellent work, but there is a very high bar that must be met in order to meet WP Notability requirements, as can be seen by this list of Notable environmentalists. (Since so many on this page have invoked WP:WAX/WP:OSE comparisons, I might as well join in. :) The awards, while nice, are not notable themselves, neither are the sources of those awards. And the TV/radio appearances are also of insufficient notablity. All of these combined do not confer sufficient notability for us to have an article on the subject; what pushes it is the famous sister and now the brouhaha over the sex-tape, both of which go against WP:BLP as to conferring notability. Even if one believes these do provide sufficient notability, I say we still err on the side of "do no harm" and delete this article. Why do we need it? It's not encylopedic, if we take away the titillating, tabloid aspects of the content, there's nothing to base an article on. Dreadstar ☥ 17:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "tabloid, titilating aspects of the article", as you put it, haven't actually been in the article since it was nominated for deletion. What's there is plenty to base an article upon; a fairly lengthy, well-sourced list of her notable involvement in public life, which is precisely why she's a household name in Australia. Which comes back to the point I've made a couple of times here - dude, did you even read the article? Rebecca (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, dudette, I've read the article and not only do I still see references to the sex tape, the DUI, the bankruptcy and the famous sister (all titillating, tabloidy content), but we also have editors attempting to add material that makes it look like she's a criminal and a porn star, as well as dragging NN individuals into the article,[4]. Sure the article doesn't go into gory detail, but all my comments are relevant and I stand by them. Dreadstar ☥ 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The link you noted points to an edit where someone added the name of Macpherson's brother to her infobox. It notably does not contain anything that would so much as remotely imply that she was either a criminal or a porn star. While deserving of being removed, it's hardly what you're making it out to be. The sex tape sentence wasn't in the article when I last read it, and has clearly been readded; nonetheless, it consists of one sentence at the bottom of the article, which when deservedly re-removed won't affect the notability of the article one damn bit. I've got no idea what it is about Macpherson that seems to inspire such ridiculous hyperbole among certain editors here. Rebecca (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Um, that edit added a lot more than just the name of her brother. I suggest you review it more carefully, it contains exactly what I said it contains. Dreadstar ☥ 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I invite interested users to look at Dreadstar's linked addition of an infobox and see for yourself his wondrous exaggeration skills. Rebecca (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, please show me the error of my ways and how that edit only adds the name of her brother, not anything about 'criminal charges and penalties', 'drunk driving', 'fines', 'celebrity sex tape', NN 'half-sister and parents.' The infobox is a highly visible summary of the article's important contents - information there is naturally 'exaggerated' above content in the article's body. The content of that edit does exactly what I said it does. Dreadstar ☥ 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just removed a couple of those titillating aspects from an info box where they were prominently displayed, so probably your personal comment is ill advised. I have yet to see a source where notability (not fame or notoriety) is outlined, and although I have asked if anyone can point one out, here, no one has. Until that point I don't see notability, and that means deletion... I don't see Mimi mentioned here [5] either. Although, she certainly seems to have been involved in good works in terms of the environment, once again, probably not notably so. I also don't see her listed as a notable Australian environmentalist in sources I have looked at, but maybe I'm missing something. Can someone point such a source out? (olive (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        • The distinction you're making is one that you're making up out of thin air. Wikipedia's actual policy on notability (WP:N) mandates that she have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It notably does not say a damned thing about "fame" or "notoriety" being some form of exception. Mimi Macpherson is a household name in Australia, which is backed up by an abundance of reliable sources, both those mentioned in the article, and a couple thousand that aren't should someone choose to expand the article even further. Whether you think she should be famous or not is completely irrelevant to this discussion; what matters is, according to Wikipedia's actual policies on notability, she's patently and obviously notable. I also think that what makes this case all the more bizarre, for anyone who's actually heard of the subject, is that, uh, she's not what you'd call notorious - which makes arguments that her notability is based on such rather bizarre. Rebecca (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps you should re-read WP:BIO, the notability guideline that applies to people; the first paragraph of the lede section clearly talks about the aspects of 'famous' and 'popular' as they relate to Notability on Wikipedia. Notoriety in and of itself absolutely can be an exception, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Avoid victimization; in this particular case, any notoriety does not confer notability. Further, WP:N is not a policy, it's a guideline. Get your facts straight before accusing and insulting others. Dreadstar ☥ 18:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The abundance of sources documenting her career demonstrate that she's easily enough of a significant figure to have an article as per WP:BIO. It makes a mockery of attempts to ascertain actual notability through sources if all that it a deletion argument comes down to is that you find her too trite to have an article, actual sources of notability be damned. Rebecca (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No one that I see is commenting in a personal way on the subject of this article, so comments attributing that kind of behaviour to another editor are unfair, uncalled for, and a personal affront to the editors commenting here. Especially, the word trite when use in reference to another human being is your word and no one else's. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia is about sources and its policies and guidelines, so reliable sources that establish notability rather than even a plethora of sources that do not, some of which were not reliable, are necessary. That's the way the encyclopedia functions. We don't have the luxury of modifying the policies and guidelines to suit individual opinions and circumstances. None of this at this point is about Mimi Macpherson. Its about establishing quality in the encyclopedia, and its articles.(olive (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
                • OK, I've reread WP:BLP and WP:Biographies of living people#Avoid victimization in relation to this AfD, and in the latter case I see nothing there that suggests that deleting the article is in any way a remedy for avoiding victimization: it says "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic", not "When in doubt, delete the article". I'm also rather perplexed that The Courier Mail, The Townsville Bulletin or the Sunshine Coast Daily aren't enough for some people, especially when none of these mention sister Elle and all give a pretty clear idea of Macpherson's notability. I'm not sure why sources that mention Elle are being considered irrelevant anyway; having a famous relative may be part of the reason she became well-known, but it doesn't make all the coverage of her null and void just because of that. Frickeg (talk) 01:41, 23 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mimi_Macpherson&oldid=1144725878"