Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa Strix

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. Tim Song (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsa Strix

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

Non-notable person. Being romantically involved with a notable person does not confer notability -- clear case of WP:BLP1E Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete The one reference barely mentions her. "Community theatre" ???? !!!!! :-) --Simon Speed (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alio The Fool 20:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no genuine claim of notability. Claritas (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This fellow was pretty famous, in the 90's. Gattosby (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This fellow......? Read the article before you !vote, please......--Claritas (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. Inniverse (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Hence the ! in !vote, referring to the C operator ! for "not". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination fails WP:BEFORE. Numerous google and news hits. Take a look here. Independent references include the New York post[1] and other reliable sources. Inniverse (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, if someone is in a relationship with someone notable, and have not received coverage in reliable sources outside of this role, they are not notable. Claritas (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lionelt (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Extrabatteries (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete completely unnotable person. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO, being randomly mentioned as being in a relationship with a notable person does not make them notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more than a random mention. Did you even look at the Gnews graph here? The news broke about the relationship in 2003, and yet reliable news articles are still being published about this woman in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. The only reason being given for delete is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Inniverse (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as the graph is irrelevant. It is the actual articles I look at, and none of those articles are significant coverage about HER, rather about her husband with mentions of her on the side. It has nothing to do with "i like it" or "I don't" but basic Wikipedia policy and avoiding having an article on a unnotable person that serves no purpose but to act as a gossip rag or a one-line bio. And it is is still BLP1E - she had no coverage before her marriage to him, and still has no significant coverage on her own. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:59, 29 May 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.