User:James086/AFD3

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 citing WP:BIO1E (non-admin close) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kristin Davis (prostitute)

Kristin Davis (prostitute) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Single-event coverage does not meet notability criteria; she isn't even the prostitute Spitzer frequented - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Outside of this WP:ONEEVENT she's pretty much a non-notable....no not going to say it, but non-notable anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. The article was just created. Let's wait a little to see if the story giver her long-term notability, just like someone else that started off as a WP:ONEEVENT. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and [maybe] redirect, absolutely unnotable in herself, only notable in connection to the wider scandal. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't find evidence she herself is charged with prostitution[1], so the name should probably be Kristin Davis (alleged madam). --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait: Isn't a madam a women who runs a brothel? TheScotch (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Bingo. In this case, an "escort service". Again, she is charged with money laundering, not with being a prostitute. --Dhartung | Talk 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Much as I'd like to re-direct this whole scandal to the circular bin, (the scandal itself, not the WP article), I don't think that's an option. So, merge per BLP1E/ONEEVENT, she's a n-n working girl. Relationship does not confer notability and nor does fun for hire TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is in the news as a service provider to a public figure, and will continue to be for a little while. Although I think she should be listed under her name as "Kristin 'Billie' Davis" and not as "Kristin Davis (big-time ho)" or however she has been recently redirected.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Erxnmedia (talk • contribs)
  • Comment See people naming conventions. Use of middle names to avoid a disambiguation is deprecated. Articles should be titled as the subject is commonly known and a disambiguator added, in parenthesis in most cases, which permits use of the pipe trick. --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, or failing that keep. (This is one of the rare instances where I will call merging worse than either outright retention or deletion.) This is not a complete biography, and pretty much only covers one negative aspect of the person's life. Her role in the controversy is also fairly minor. I am strongly opposed to redirecting this to the prostitution ring, or scandal article, because that ties the person's name irrevocably to a negative article, and gives no opportunity to say anything else about her. It is far more respectful to the person to have a biography which can be expanded or rewritten to something beyond the current article, than to tie the person to a scandal and only the scandal. Still, I agree with the WP:ONEEVENT comments above, and prefer outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, or , of course, pretend we don't know what's going on in the world, or what is likely to occur there. Right, nobody is ever going to hear of her again, or want know anything, and there is no material to expand the article. DGG (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I really can't identify the "one event" the nominator is referring to. It looks to me like this individual has received significant coverage. --Pixelface (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2008 (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.