Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Hosty

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Hosty

Non-notable, vanity, and unencyclopedic. Delete Ardenn 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, well I would have to agree to a certain extent. I do not really know why socialites deserve mention in an encyclopedia. But I was looking up someone else, and came across whole categories of socialites (by nationality, etc) whose authors would probably be sad if they were deleted. Honestly, you are not deleting this because you think it is a silly article (otherwise you should delete ALL of them)--you are deleting it because you didn't like what I wrote about the universities/colleges. Let's talk about that please. : ) Veritasophia 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No, it's on afd because of what I mentioned above. There's nothing in the article that establishes why it deserves an article. Ardenn 22:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's not play games like this. You would not have even thought about looking up random socialites and deleting them if you hadn't seen it on my contibutions list, so it is clear that you did it because you are mad at me or something for reporting some (admittedly negative) information about some schools in BC. We are fixing that, and I will try to be unbiased about universities in the future. So about this, you would have to agree to saying that all or the majority of the articles on socialites should be deleted for the same reasons, which I don't think you are prepared to do because you really don't care about the socialite thing but about the universities. Please try to be reasonable. : ) Veritasophia 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am being reasonable, it's on afd. End of story. I'll remind you about civility on your talk page. Leave this dispute there, and not here. Ardenn 22:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. And I would vote the same for any article about a non-notable socialite. --Ginkgo100 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn debcruft. Scary. Fan1967 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also delete the category "Canadian Socialites" which has one member, Lauren Hosty. Fan1967 22:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made the new category for Canadians because there wasn't one before. I realize it looks a bit silly with only one, but I guess I was sort of hoping others would add more. There are categories for Americans, Australians, French, British, etc. I thought Canada should have a category too. Is that ok?

And about non-notable-ness, most socialites probably *are* non-notable compared to celebrities or less-famous authors or certain types of cheese or a bunch of other wacky stuff that is on wikipedia because some people think it is interesting. There are enough people interesting in recording the goings-on of socialites, so that is why there are articles about them, Hosty included. Make sense? Veritasophia 22:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Nobody's interested in this one. Fan1967 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I just looked it up and I think what is happening is "sockpuppeting". This is really sad and it makes me never want to go on wikipedia if people are just going to gang up on me and delete everything I write just because I wrote it. That is so mean. There is just no other explanation for it, unless Ardenn just called up Fan and Ginkgo and TOLD them to go online and start debating this. Which is also really mean. Just be considerate! : ( Veritasophia 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't know that I've ever even encountered Ardenn before. All articles nominated for deletion show up in the daily log (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today) for other people to review and comment on. Ardenn didn't have to call anyone. Fan1967 23:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess what I am saying is that within 4 minutes of he and I having this little dispute, 4 other people are suddenly interested? I know there is no way to prove you aren't him or don't know him, but it is really quite random that you and the others would be interested in Lauren, espeically if his whole premise is that no one cares about her. You see? Veritasophia 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
All AFD's are listed on that page, and there are many users who check it regularly. All they need to do is read the article to judge its merit. Ardenn 23:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you're greatly underestimating the level of traffic Wikipedia and the afd page receives, Veritasophia.Bwithh 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If you go to Today's AfDs or Yesterday's AfDs, you'll see how quickly a lot of people jump into a discussion on a nominated article. You haven't been singled out, and you're not the victim of a bunch of sockpuppets. This is quite normal. Fan1967 02:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as total vanity page. Or Userfy if Veritasophis wants (that means the page contents will be moved to your user page) Bwithh 23:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is the cutest afd tangle I've ever come across. Bwithh
Ok, don't yell at me or delete things, I'm just asking: to "userfy", does that mean that it is just an article that the user likes or something, but not enough people like it enough to have its own article? Veritasophia 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it means that we put it in your user space, in this case, on your user page. Your user page is at User:Veritasophia. Ardenn 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - The article mentions this person might be notable, but it doesn't desribe exactly what productions for. If they are listed in the article, I'm for keeping it. CP/M 02:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ginkgo100; no real notability or merit; userfy if you must. Fluit 02:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find zero Google hits for the subject (except for one which refers to a different person with a similar name). [1] "There are enough people interesting in recording the goings-on of socialites, so that is why there are articles about them," but there aren't any articles about Lauren Hosty that I can find. The socialites who get listed in Wikipedia are those who come to the attention of newspapers and most of them yield a fair number of Google hits. --Metropolitan90 03:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note Both parents also fail google search. If they were actually anybody in SF society they would have appeared in print somewhere. Being rich is one thing. Being somebody in high society is something else. This family's just rich. Fan1967 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Google search gives thousands on my real name, as well as for anyone who actively participates in Internet under his name, but some notable persons get times less. However, unless specific productions for subject to be acknowledged for are listed, this article is useless. CP/M 04:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. I've lived in San Francisco since 2000 and have never heard or read mention of her or her family. --William Pietri 06:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as 100% NN vanity, what more do you need? I'd also question the sheer factual nature of the article - I'm wondering when, for example, she would have fit in "studying at Oxford" during this "youth" of hers, since she only finished high school in 2003 and has been at college in British Columbia since (and while we're at it, how can one start college in 2003 and now be in their fourth year?). Anyway, the article asserts no notability whatsoever. Seb Patrick 09:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fact: Canadian universities end in April and thus students graduating from high school in 2003 are entering their fourth year, and when you are in the summer between years you wouldn't say you are in the year you just completed. Also, many bright students ie those that would be accepted for a study abroad program at Oxford will have taken AP classes and would be well into the fourth year credit wise. So Seb Patrick's question of the article's "sheer factual natural" is illogical in those areas. In terms of notability there are other articles on Wikipedia regarding socialites are equally not "notable". The main definition for socialites being that they are not primarily something else ie actress, model. For if they were they would be called by that instead. This article sounds like most of the rest of them so I'd say keep because I don't see a problem about this one. Roses85 00:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Roses85 has only made one contribution to Wikipedia, and it's on this afd. Ardenn 00:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Rose85 also totally ignores the fact that, even if socialites were notable, we're totally unable to verify that she is one, or exists at all. All that can be verified from google is that a Lauren Hosty finished a half-marathon in Niagara, ON a few years back. Fan1967 01:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn. Just because Category:American socialites exists doesn't make all socialites notable enough for a Wikipedia article, when even a cursory look at the category would reveal that it contains people like Lee Radziwill, Gloria Vanderbilt, Caroline Kennedy and Patty Hearst, who are notable for other reasons besides simply having been socialites. Veritasophia is hereby invited to stow the attitude. Bearcat 06:46, 2 June 2006 (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.