Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Conrad (3rd 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 Speedy keep. No valid rationale provided; this is the same reasoning as the last two and appears to be WP:POINTy -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Conrad

Lauren Conrad (3rd nomination) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject of this article wants it deleted, even if she is notable. I work for MTV, promoting The Hills and I'm doing what she and Breanna Conrad want, so there you go. If Daniel Brandt can do it, so can we. Taniaatmtveurope 22:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Survived 2 Afd's. Georgia guy 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. With respect to Conrad (and we only have the nominator's word that these are in fact her wishes), she is a public figure who has appeared in two major television programs and has also won a notable award. Such notability disqualifies one from requesting that media coverage be removed. This does not, of course, apply to incorrect or libellous information that may be in the article and which fall under WP:BLP policies. But that's a content issue, not a "should this article exist?" issue. 23skidoo 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - The reason stated here is the same as for the last one, in saying the nominator works for MTV, speaks for Ms. Conrad, and wishes the article deleted due to Conrad's wishes. The subject is notable, but that is not what the nomination is about. As before, the nominator has no proof that they actually speak on behalf of Ms. Conrad, and even if they did, there is no grounds for deletion. Also as before, this deletion makes for the nominator's first and only edits to WP and seems to be a clear violation of WP:POINT. --skew-t 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and since this is the third time, I suggest performing a checkuser to track down the source of this problem is possible. FrozenPurpleCube 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and a bad-faith nomination. Nom will also note that Daniel Brandt's page is still there. -M^ask? 00:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep not a valid reason for deletion. Daniel Brandt has been deleted yet, as can be seen by the fact that it is still blue linked. Oh, and if you want to go the Brandt route, you're going to have to be spending over a year and a half to get it down, unless the courtesy bio policy gains conesnsus and becomes policy. hbdragon88 00:32, 19 April 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.