Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Wohl

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 delete per consensus of established editors. --Coredesat 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arden Wohl

Arden Wohl (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Contested prod. Non-notable bio that has already been speedied twice. Article restored pending promised improvements from original author, but author removed prod tag without adding new content. --Finngall talk 23:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Obviously fails notability criteria, and its a re-creation of previously deleted content without a deletion review, and without anything particularly substantial happening to make it notable. Matt - TheFearow 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KeepStrong Keep Google search on Arden Wohl gets 16K hits, lots of them mentions in fashion mags and gossip columns. The person obviously passes notability criteria (maybe not as a film director, but as a socialite); that the article fails to establish this means the article should be improved, not deleted Capmango 23:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Article has been greatly improved and expanded since it was initally sent here; I think it warrants another look. Plenty of external sources now; some are blogs but lots are reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Changes up my vote from Keep to Strong keep. Capmango 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I believe it fails WP:BIO, and remember WP:GOOGLEHITS, Capmango. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • sigh. My point wasn't just, hey there are 16K of hits. I actually followed the links and educated myself a bit before weighing in. Unless Wikipedia has a built-in bias against people who we think don't deserve to be famous, any look at these sites will show that within the odd world of NYC socialites, this is a very notable person. I'm not judging whether she ought to be notable, but there a lots of pages like this one that clearly show that she is. Personally, I hadn't heard of her before now, but I'm an Arizona computer geek, not a NYC socialite. Capmango 04:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • So fame within "the odd world of NYC socialites" is now sufficient for Wikipedia? Morgan Wick 19:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Unless someone has added a socialite exclusion to WP:N, then yes of course. Notable socialites are notable human beings, or do we have reverse-elitism happening here? Capmango 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - At the very least, needs better notability justification. —LactoseTIT 01:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm interested to know just what kind of philanthropy a 24-year old film student is capable of ~ Infrangible 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. The Observer calls her an heiress, Infrangible. But that doesn't make her especially notable. She'll have to go to jail or be in a reality TV show first, like you-know-who. Clarityfiend 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Subject clearly meets the letter of WP:BIO, though you seem to have a distaste for the independent sources that cover her. Again smacks of reverse-elitism. Capmango 21:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So we have maybe one bona fide article in a reliable and respectable publication, a few questionable sources, and a bunch of sources I wouldn't trust to write an unintelligible screed on a napkin. And I was actually starting to come around on notability reading all those sources. Capmango is going to need to do a little more than resort to personal attacks. Morgan Wick 06:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend anything to be taken as a personal attack (I was trying to address the arguments, not the people making them), and I'm not the one who said the subject needed to go to jail in order to be notable. If anyone took my remarks as being uncivil, I apologize. Obviously I had nothing to do with writing the article, I have no connection with or previous knowledge of the author and I have nothing to gain or lose by its inclusion or deletion from Wikipedia. I am motivated only by a concern that we may be inadvertantly developing a double standard for inclusion, that we are all of us a little too willing to stand in judgment of (or be summarily dismissive of) areas we really know very little about. It seems to me that your rejection of everyone of these sources (in a not particularly civil way, IMHO) just underscores my point. I'm not sure if the consensus here is "socialites as a group are not notable" or if it is "Arden Wohl is not notable in the world of socialites". If it is the first, then I am worried that we have a double standard. If it is the second, then I would really like to hear that argument from someone who can demonstrate a deep understanding of that world. It appears from the nature of the arguments presented here that the author of the article is the only one involved in these discussions who has much of a grasp on that. Capmango 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep this Arden Wohl person seems to have done alot for NY charities and is using her talent to bring attention to exploited children. She is doing a movie with George Cloony. Lets not tar all socialite type people with a Paris brush people...what is wrong with rising talent! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment This IP is almost certainly the same person as Tweety21 above, based on editing patterns. --Finngall talk 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the author's behavior is having a determintal effect here. Looks like all the keep votes besides mine may be sock puppets (how embarassing!) Capmango 17:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith and assume the author's multiple IPs (including the latest, 142.205.213.42) are a result of simply using several different computers and not bothering to log in, rather than an attempt at vote-stacking. Still, they should be taken for what they're worth. --Finngall talk 18:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Both IDs have attempted to remove the AfD template from the article--I have restored it multiple times. As the author appears to be impervious to advice about policies and procedures, I recommend salting if the article is deleted. --Finngall talk 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Add 216.191.208.99 to the list of potential socks of this user. --Finngall talk 16:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This is why IP's normally are not allowed to vote in AfD debates. Morgan Wick 01:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep one delete voter, states that Philatropy is hardly a matter for wiki..ever hear of Bill Gates, or Andrew Carneigie?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk • contribs)

*strong keep maybe I'm just a hick from the sticks, but it seems like Arden is doing alot to bring awareness to exploited children..who can argue with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.208.99 (talk • contribs) Second vote from this IP, see directly above

  • Delete - lots of mentions in blogs, but no reliable independent sources. She may be popular, but not notable. -- Whpq 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I think we all need to just chill out!! some comments about me as the author are bordering on libel..I am actually in a sorority and for all you know there could be a bunch of us using the same ip, I would watch these kinds of comments..I try and do a good thing by doing an article about someone who is trying to help society and you guys all hold a bloody witch hun! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.213.42 (talk • contribs)
  • comment I am withdrawing several of my ill-considered statements, now that I have sobered up :) Capmango 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • strong keep - I am editing this story to include sources; furthermore, you will note she is directing a film starring George Clooney, and she has been mentioned extensively in the press? Regardless of whether you agree with the way this article was created -- or is being defended -- you cannot question that this subject exists, and is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.80.109 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I, as the author would like to say most of these delete votes was when I just had a paragraph and nothing really there, I since researched the subject and found extensive info on notability!! everyone in the art, charity circuit knows Arden!!! I did this article as an "anti paris" kind of thing, meaning that there are some girls in prominent positions who use their money, and skills for good!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment To be fair, the article has been improved quite a bit since the nomination was posted, and while I'm still dubious about her notability, I do hope that this will be taken into account by all commenters and the closing admin. --Finngall talk 14:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT..HEY I thought that this had to be decided within 5 days of first nomination or tag was removed....what is going on...????
  • Five days is the standard period of time, but discussions can run shorter (in cases of clear consensus, withdrawn nominations, or application of the snowball clause), or longer (in cases of lack of consensus or the admins simply not getting around to it). In any case, the admin who closes the discussion will either delete the article or remove the AfD tag, and nobody else should mess with it. --Finngall talk 21:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to comment that 95% of comments are when first entered (when I had just one paragraph) and not researched propertly, since then I have fixed this up! I hope this gets resolved soon because I wanted to do a stub for The childrens charity "The Playground Project", and also for the movie "Coven" I made the first entry on the 7th, when I actually had time off from work, I greatly improved this and researched how to do a proper page. Thanks much, Charlene —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.213.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I commented early on in this debate and I have to say I'm still not convinced by the sources as per Morgan Wick's analysis. The latest source is pretty sketchy. I think she could well be notable in the future but not now, and to keep on the chance that her next film will make her notable would be crystal balling. Mallanox 00:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Just a note, some of the sources in that list were of questionable reliability, not completely lacking in it. Morgan Wick 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Mallanox, I dont mean to be rude, but for Gods sake you're in ENGLAND! I don't know what Fish and Chips are ...doesnt mean its not important!!! :O) of course you wont know an up-and-coming like Arden, and its a shame you think only the Julia Roberts and such are noteworthy..I mean Coven was narrated by LEELEE Sobreski, shes an A-lister!! thats pretty impressive and shes produced a movie with George Clooney for Gods sake ..have you???
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.