Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. I personally sympathize with the "delete" opinions, as they are motivated by a desire to apply what WP:BLP requires: that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Nonetheless, the view that doing so requires deletion has not achieved consensus in this discussion, and I am also not able to give the "delete" opinions decisive weight in assessing the outcome of this discussion. This is because there are also serious and good-faith policy-based arguments for retention, notably, that the article is verifiable as required by the BLP policy and that the subject has received relatively extensive and substantial media coverage over an extended period of time. For this reason, the "delete" arguments are not quite compelling enough for me to find that a consensus for deletion exists. I think that most here can agree, though, that the article could use improvement.  Sandstein  23:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Wildenstein

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jocelyn Wildenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article had been deleted previously at [[1]] as a BLP1E. Noticing it was still around, I redirected it to Alec N. Wildenstein, which seemed like a logical target. However, I've been since reverted and informed that the article looks different than the previous one. While I have no way of checking that out, all of the points made in the previous AfD about the BLP issues still seem to stand. She is still only notable for spending her divorce earnings on plastic surgery. On top of that, this article consists of only a few sentences, and all of the information given is contained in the article on her husband. Yaksar (let's chat) 17:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Article was rewritten from scratch and all information in it is currently sourced from WP:RS. Notability has been established by several published books and many news articles (WP:SIGCOV), including reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The references cite the subject's spending habits, cosmetic surgery, and divorce as notable, so the other article's reasons for deletion WP:BLP1E and WP:N no longer seem to apply. The article is verifiable, written from an NPOV, and contains no original research . . . so seems to stand as a viable biography. While it is still in a stub state at the moment, there is much more information available about the subject and no reason the article can't be further expanded. Deleting all information contained and redirecting to the article as the nominator has attempted to do seems a bit rash. --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ms. Wildenstein has been the subject of multiple media profiles, which can drawn upon as reliable sources; a carefully maintained version of this article can be informative on New York society in the 1980s and '90s, on the controversies that dogged her family-by-marriage's business (a major entity in the international art trade), as well as the subject for which she is most widely known, cosmetic surgery. Robertissimo (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usually, this would be a redirect to her ex-husband, if not for the unfortunate fact that there is extensive coverage of her extending far beyond any indication of one event. Examples of news articles about her include this and this and more than 500 more, not to mention tons of books, and the fact that coverage of her continues from 1998 to today. Article could definitely use some improvement though. SilverserenC 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a fuckin' break. Stop it you guys. Absolutely violates WP:BLP in spirit and practice and must and presumably will be deleted regardless of how many many keep votes there are. The Wikipedia is not a freak show, and leave the poor woman alone for chrissakes. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article adheres to wiki's principals of Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Please point out the exact area you think that WP:BLP is not being adhered to and I'll endeavor to modify the article.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of you have commented on notability through the evident sources or explained how it violates BLP. And you can't consider something to be one event when coverage of a person extends over a 14 year period. SilverserenC 23:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Money is not an "event" making anyone specifically notable, and getting a divorce does not add to the non-existent notability. Not even a star on a reality show - which means that BLP1E applies looking from over here. Now if she appears in a relaity show, my opinion would change. This is a policy-based reason for deletion, and should be given strong weight in any close IMO. Collect (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Money is not an event indicating notability, you're correct. However publications writing about extravagant spending habits would indicate some notability, as in the case of this article. You're also correct that getting a divorce does not add to notability . . . unless of course the divorce was very public and covered in many publications, as in the case of this article. Your 'policy based deletion' argument doesn't seem to be based in the facts surrounding the article or wikipedia's policies.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator - It may be too late at this point, but considering that the last AfD was fairly active, should I have notified the participants of this new one? If the discussion is relisted, I probably will.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If and only if you use a neutrally worded notice to everyone without any regard for their position. Collect (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even then, since the prior AfD ended in delete, that means you would be notifying just delete voters, who we know aren't going to vote any differently. So, regardless of how neutral the message is, what makes notifying a bunch of delete voters truly neutral? SilverserenC 17:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, in the interest of full disclosure, my participation stems from this discussion, but seriously, anyone covered in multiple reliable sources is notable enough for Wikipedia. Period! And screw this "one event" jibberish. Technically, Gavrillo Princip is only notable for one event, but hey, that one event is pretty notable, no? And, no, I am not saying she is on par with that murderer's influence on history, but really, the idea that being notable for only one event is a disqualifier is frankly idiotic and anti-encyclopedic. If the one event is a well-covered and notable event, well, there you have it. As usual, anything that is factually inaccurate or not cited in a reliable source should be vigorously removed, but as it has been shown above she is discussed in reliable sources and therefore merits inclusion in the ultimate encyclopedia, holmes! ;( And people wonder why the freedom-loving and actual academic world near universally despises deletionism... --WR Reader (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for the general reader; the above "user" has no actual connection to the Wikipedia Review. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly removed the SPA tag that you added to the user's comment. They have claimed no association with Wikipedia Review other than reading it, as many editors do. Although the comments of this account suggest that it is a sockpuppet an alternate account of someone associated with the WP:ARS, this is hardly the only edit they have made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever floats your boat, but the "single purpose" is obviously to pester ARS-related discussions and file frivolous edit-warring complaints against, quote, "electronic book burners". Tarc (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to have a connection to Wikipedia Review anyway? He says he reads it, and he says he opposes canvassing campaigns[2] like the one he claims deleted the ARS rescue template. All mostly irrelevant to his commentary here, though it explains his position a bit -- I think everyone needs to be a little more frank about what the problem is with the article --its not that the subject isn't notable, its that she is notable for a fairly terrible reason that has close to no redeeming value for an encyclopedia. The subjects' coverage becomes pervasive enough in the media that BLP1E is a strain to apply. Should we have such BLPs or not, and this AfD in particular, that is the fundamental question of this AfD. I am a strong inclusionist, but I cannot believe we can't have a line somewhere where we are allowed to say "enough, this one is just too much, I don't want it."--Milowent • hasspoken 15:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't draw a line on notability just where we feel in our opinions that a notable person has too negative of a persona in the world. That is far too opinionated. She is very clearly notable and it is opinion on whether being notable for facial surgery and money is bad or not, but she is clearly a discussed person in the world and has been for 14 years. SilverserenC 17:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like we don't have many other articles on people notable for body modification: See Elaine Davidson, Katzen (performer), and The Scary Guy. Not sure why people are getting so riled up about Ms. Wildenstein . . . who's clearly more notable than all of the others.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, AfD is over 7 days now, and obviously there is no consensus to delete. I didn't formally !vote delete though I tried to make clear what the concern is here and what is really fueling the delete votes; its not a lack of notability, and not even BLP1E, its closer to IAR than anything else, in the absence of a new rule to govern such cases.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that was written about as a front page story in New York magazine (as an example, with many more possible examples) does not count as "gossip" or "heard on a grapevine". BLP specifically says, "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Wildenstein is very clearly a public figure and is extremely notable in that sphere. SilverserenC 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How are people coming to the conclusion that Ms. Wildenstein has achieved notability only for her surgeries? The book "The Good Divorce: How to Walk Away Financially Sound and Emotionally Happy" and the New York cover article ([[3]] ) both cover her divorce and extravagant spending habits far more than plastic surgery.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true, I read the New York Magazine piece last night, her surgeries were just one of the things it covered. If you read the sources in detail she has gained notability for being a socialite/divorcee as well as a plastic surgery patient. Whether either of those are enough to justify having a page on her, I will leave to others to debate. My hunch is that if she had existed a few hundred years ago, we would be treating this more seriously (i.e. Pig-faced women). But then again, maybe an encyclopedia should give less weight to recent phenomena. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my view, the purpose of this article is to mock her; she is not a sufficiently public figure. This is to some extent a matter of individual judgment: though BLP policy is strict, the interpretation of individual cases like this falls to the community. New York has considerable elements of tabloid; I do not consider coverage in there as necessarily sufficient to avoid NOT TABLOID. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone please identify which part of the current article is mocking Ms. Wildenstein? Nobody has yet made reference to ANY section of the current article. Many of the arguments (including this one) that are being brought up on this AFD seem to pertain to a previous version of the article (that was deleted) and have no bearing on the discussion about the page as it now stands.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already voted to delete the article on BLP1E grounds. My statement above explicitly says that I am not commenting on the question of how the article may be mocking Wildenstein. Playground style arguments will not win you any credibility here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (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/Jocelyn_Wildenstein_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137951252"