![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 June 14. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 July 15. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 August 26. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 November 16. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. I find the deletion arguments more persuasive- especally WP:Notnews and WP:BLP1E, despite this being numerically even, hence I'm closing it in favour of deletion. Courcelles ( talk) 10:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This woman, who claims to have been fired by Citibank for being too attractive, is very much known only for this single event (WP:EVENT) and is not notable in any other ways. The article is written in slightly POV-way, but the main problem is that she simply is not notable apart from her claim to have been too attractive Jeppiz ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Update to nomination After the article was nominated, it has degenerated even further, it now features a library of video links with videos such as reply
“ | When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. |
” |
“ | When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate... |
” |
Keep - This article is widely searched for. We should keep it to present an neutral view on the discussion.
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 June 14. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 July 15. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 August 26. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
![]() | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2010 November 16. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. I find the deletion arguments more persuasive- especally WP:Notnews and WP:BLP1E, despite this being numerically even, hence I'm closing it in favour of deletion. Courcelles ( talk) 10:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This woman, who claims to have been fired by Citibank for being too attractive, is very much known only for this single event (WP:EVENT) and is not notable in any other ways. The article is written in slightly POV-way, but the main problem is that she simply is not notable apart from her claim to have been too attractive Jeppiz ( talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Update to nomination After the article was nominated, it has degenerated even further, it now features a library of video links with videos such as reply
“ | When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. |
” |
“ | When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate... |
” |
Keep - This article is widely searched for. We should keep it to present an neutral view on the discussion.