Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsy Davy (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsy Davy

Renominated per:
- they broke up and she did not become any more notable in her own right since then
- i question the (2006? - undocumented?) undeletion of the article in the first place
- WP:SEWAGE and WP:Pokémon test (i'm not calling HER sewage at all, i'm calling the inclusion of the article sewage)
- WP:F*** Gregorik (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Subject of literally hundreds of media articles, TV programmes and other reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt thanks to being the girlfriend of Prince Harry. But: WP:NOTINHERITED, notability should be established independently. Gregorik (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay that doesn't have general consensus. The fact is, that this person clearly meets the general purpose notability guideline, and therefore the argument put forward by WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't really apply. Many of the press articles about Ms. Davy are about her, specifically, and I fail to see any reason therefore to discount them. JulesH (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full disclosure: This is actually the very first article I created on Wikipedia way back in 2006, so consider me biased. As far as documentation for the undeletion, that's still on the article talk page, when I got permission from a sysop who needed to remove some salt. [1] I'll go ahead and admit off that bat that it's, quite simply, not a good article. But it shouldn't be deleted, on the basis of passing the general notability guidelines with flying colors. You could make a very good Keep case just off the 2,700 Google News Hits. But there are also the substantive profiles of her: like these two in the guardian[2] [3]. Nor could she get knocked off on the one event exception: the guardian's year by year breakdown shows her name appearing in multiple articles in each year since 2004 [4]. There are also articles which concentrate solely on her activities: like this one in the Telegraph regarding her career plans[5]. The break up doesn't take away from her notablility: notability is not temporary. The immense mainstream media coverage of Davy over the past 5 years made her notable, and she didn't lose that in the breakup. That said: the article definitely does need a clean up. Vickser (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is covered personally, in-depth, by many articles in the British press. Sure, she became famous because of her relationship with Prince Harry, but there are plenty of articles focused primarily on her. Like, this one that has come up since they broke up in the Daily Mail. I understand that notability is not inherited, but her continued celebrity shows that she is interesting in and of herself. For example, Paris Hilton became famous because she is a Hilton who became a wild child. Now, she is famous on her own. Notability is not temporary. SMSpivey (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is not temporary so the breakup is irrelevant and while her relationship with Harry may be what caused her to be in the spotlight, there's no case of inheritance either. She's the subject of multiple publications herself. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there's easily enough press coverage. Everyking (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Still a notable person. Sf46 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2009 (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.