Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Kelly
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 keep because:
(1) The references cited in Autumn_Kelly#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of Autumn Kelly's notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline AND
(2) Five established users supported retention of the article, while no established users supported deletion. The two registered users who did support deletion have new accounts and few edits. John254 03:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Autumn Kelly
Delete: Peter Phillips' fiance does not merit her own article Crazylikeafoxx 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a tough one. She has achieved notability, one could judge, because of her fiance. But we don't need to judge. The basis for her notability in wikipedia is not because of her fiance, it is because there are multiple non trivial reliable sources. Which are in the article. Notable.Obina 21:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This marriage may be the occasion upon which the British Parliament drops the penalty for members of the Royal Family who marry Roman Catholics. Therefore, I think she merits her own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggrass (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The possibility that some penalty might be changed in the future based on a wedding that hasn't even happened yet does not make someone notable Worldfamousdirector 22:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:BIO as having multiple secondary sources. Dylan 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as I don't think she's notable except in the strict sense (per Obina). Her fiance is a commoner at his parents' wishes and she will still be a commoner after marrying him whether he remains in line or not. Notability not being inherited I don't normally think we should accord the spouse, let alone fiancee, of a royal relative with notability. That's obviously not the way Fleet Street will play it, though. --Dhartung | Talk 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
WeakDelete While she has been mentioned in reliable sources I don't know that she meets the WP:BIO requirement of being the subject of the articals. WP:BIO also says If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted and so far she is subject of only one possible event which is her engagement. If she marries she may become notable but right now I don't think she is and instead she should be part of Peter Phillips entry Worldfamousdirector 04:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)- You have already voted once at the top. Should you be voting again. Your text above should be at the top with the nomination. --UpDown 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What? I did not vote more than once. I'm not voting again. WHy should my text be at the top with the nomination? Worldfamousdirector 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry getting confused with editors names, I saw to red-user names and didn't read proberly.--UpDown 07:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- What? I did not vote more than once. I'm not voting again. WHy should my text be at the top with the nomination? Worldfamousdirector 07:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- You have already voted once at the top. Should you be voting again. Your text above should be at the top with the nomination. --UpDown 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - She will be soon be married to the grandson of the monarch, thats notable enough to be honest. There are many references for her, which are reliable and varied. I find the above comment odd "If she marries", well their engagement has been publicly announced and for a Royal in modern times there is little chance to have an engagement announced to British 'royalty' but then not to happen. At the time of her marriage and after she will come to more public prominence and deleting the article would make no sense. Wikipedia must recognise that some people are only notable for who they are married or related to (and thats all royals really); this doesn't mean they are any the less notable than a TV celebrity or something. --UpDown 07:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Even if the marriage were to be unexpectedly called off this person still meets WP:BIO requirements. Yamaguchi先生 02:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Question On what basis do you feel she meets WP:BIO requirements? Worldfamousdirector 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because she has received media attention in the UK, and if the marriage was called off it would be a first for modern British royalty.--UpDown 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see four articals about Peter Phillips and one about her which is a profile in what looks like an entertainment tabloid. She's only being covered at all because of Peter and even at that, the coverage of her is minimal. If the marriage was called off because of her and it was the first time for modern British royalty then I would say she should definitely deserve her own page but you have yourself said that would never ever happen. Earlier you said you think she deserves her own page simplly because she'll marry the gandson of a monarch. On that basis I completely disagree. Marrying somebody in itself does not meet WP:BIO or warrent a separate biography. Worldfamousdirector 19:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well there we disagree. The whole Royal Family are famous because of who they are related to and who they marry. Diana became famous because of who she married, as did Fergie, Sophie and so on. Autumn Kelly is notable as the future wife of the Queen's grandson, and to delete this before they are married seems especially illogical. --UpDown 10:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see four articals about Peter Phillips and one about her which is a profile in what looks like an entertainment tabloid. She's only being covered at all because of Peter and even at that, the coverage of her is minimal. If the marriage was called off because of her and it was the first time for modern British royalty then I would say she should definitely deserve her own page but you have yourself said that would never ever happen. Earlier you said you think she deserves her own page simplly because she'll marry the gandson of a monarch. On that basis I completely disagree. Marrying somebody in itself does not meet WP:BIO or warrent a separate biography. Worldfamousdirector 19:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Because she has received media attention in the UK, and if the marriage was called off it would be a first for modern British royalty.--UpDown 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Question On what basis do you feel she meets WP:BIO requirements? Worldfamousdirector 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If Kate Middleton deserves her own article, and she is not engaged to Prince William, Autumn Kelly deserves her own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.241.74 (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Easy resolution: Delete both Kate Middleton and Autumn Kelly!!216.194.3.196 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
