Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise Harp

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (one probable troll vote and one anon vote discounted) Rossami (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elise Harp

Non-notable "model and actress" known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly. 190 unique Google hits, her website gets an alexa ranking of 1,139,850. Zoe 05:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Model and actress known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly. Trollderella 06:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And that's an encyclopedic article how? Zoe 06:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's factual, and verifiable. Trollderella 07:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So are a lot of things that aren't notable and aren't encyclopedic. --Charles O'Rourke 07:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

That may be so, but 'notable' and 'encyclopedic' are not deletion criteria. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You keep claiming that that is somehow a keep criterion, when it is not. Where does the deletion policy say that everything that ever existed in the world which is factual and verifiable is a candidate for keeping?

I am not, there is no 'keep criteria' as far as I can see. If it does not meet the criteria for deletion, I do not see the issue with my voting to keep it. Trollderella 07:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Trollderella, as I said yesterday on a different VfD, notability as an inclusion critereon is clearly inferred from the following section to the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.". If I own a cat, and take a picture of that cat, then I could make a factual and verifiable article entitled I have a cat, and you would vote keep for it because it is both factual (one can look at the picture in the article) and verifiable (if you don't believe the picture, you can come to my house and the cat will be there). Your inclusion criteria makes does not take into account whether a subject is encyclopedic or not. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• "verifiable" means "verifiable without doing original research", unlike the case of your cat. Kappa 10:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Fernando, WP:NOT is not deletion policy, and I am choosing to try dilligently to assess articles against deletion policy. It may well be possible to find things in all kinds of bits of policy that depreciate one thing or another, that does not make them deletion policy. As Kappa points out, with your cat, you are doing original research, there is nothing to reference except your photo of your cat. Trollderella 15:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC) PS. I'm sure it's a wonderful cat - we could probably benefit from a picture of it on your userpage! ;)

It may not be deletion policy. But it is very basic Wikipedia policy like WP:NPA. It supersedes the Deletion criteria. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:04, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

You'll forgive me for attempting to make a joke; apparently it failed. (Note to self: Kappa and Trollederella do not dig cat jokes). Outside of the specific cat example, I do believe my point still stands. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can't see how, you're constructing a strawman about a silly article that can't be verified without conducting original research, and trying to make the argument that articles that are referenced and do not need original research to verify are not valid because you might write one about your cat. Am I missing something? Trollderella 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you're missing a joke. Relax. I was trying to point out what I feel is a flaw in your reasoning by means of a light-hearted example. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry! I am sure it's a great cat! Trollderella 17:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

It's an entirely hypothetical cat. :p Now back to your regularly scheduled VfD. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Yes, Fernando, I totally agree, but why did she appear on the Today Show and The Insider if she's not notable? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mgm: Fair question, but lots of flash-in-the-pan celebrities appear on the Today Show. Fernando Rizo T/C 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. --Charles O'Rourke 07:03, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "known for painting an ad on her pregnant belly" i.e. known. Kappa 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, she's been on TV & stuff, and there's just about enough to justify an article, although emphasise to Trollderella that something being verifiable does not justify an encyclopaedia article in itself. Go read WP:NOT. Proto t c 10:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Not notable IMO. --GraemeL ^(talk) 10:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, she's had her fifteen minutes of fame but by the proverb so do we all. Radiant_>|< 10:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into GoldenPalace.com, who have done a string of strange ad placements. android79 12:31, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- DS1953 14:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The ten-year rule: will people care about these accomplishments in ten years. Not terribly likely.--Scimitar ^parley 17:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Heck, nobody cares now.  :) Zoe 07:14, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep as per User:Proto. Hall Monitor 18:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Zoe, etc... Dottore So 18:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Her most significant achievement is having a logo painted on her stomach, with ancillary TV appearances to maximise its subsequent exposure. This doesn't make her notable. Sliggy 21:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Carnildo 22:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who cares? Denni☯ 23:55, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 07:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Her 15 minutes are over. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Many people have become human billboards for goldenpalace.com. That alone is not enough to meet WP:BIO requirements. Quale 14:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any tart who can generate this much argument over a scribble she's had done on her belly (pregnant or not) deserves an article, if only to serve as a demonstration of the stupid things that people can find to argue about. 212.101.64.4 14:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep please trollerella is right and this article is factual and verifiable Yuckfoo 17:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic in scope, content or notability. Hamster Sandwich 20:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fairly useless information, it seems like she's the one who wrote it about herself, for a singles page or something.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.