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 redirect to Armie Hammer. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Chambers (television personality) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any signficiant coverage on her. The only reliable sources I could find are just bit stories about her and her husband ( Armie Hammer) but nothing strictly about her - fails WP:GNG. It also seems that she hasn't done anything really major which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Armie Hammer, considering the only major film she did was The Game Plan I can't see much notability right now. More of a "I'm married to a famous person" case. Wgolf ( talk) 20:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Have found in-depth coverage this is primarily about her. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. WP:GNG makes no discrimination against "fluff" pieces. Notable junk is still notable. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't consider Hollywood Life reliable. And the People article is more about Armie than her. GNG is still about significant coverage and not just mere mentions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Per WP:SOURCES,as long as there is editorial control over the content as there certainly is with the Penske Media Corporation operated Hollywood Life, it is acceptable coverage. All the coverage presented here specifically about this person is far beyond the scope of a "mere mention." -- Oakshade ( talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
      • And as per WP:NOTRELIABLE in the same article, "such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." When a website advertises itself as the "Latest Hollywood Gossip" - I take it out of the reliable category. And again, the People article is about Armie with mentions of Elizabeth, nothing I would consider significant. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
        • And as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, the actual reliable sources guideline, states, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. There could be an article entitles "Elizabeth Chambers is the Worst Person Ever" and that could still be acceptable coverage per WP:GNG. As per WP:GNG, it's the significant coverage that matters. Sorry, but multiple entire articles about this person is beyond the scope of WP:GNG's "mention".-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Armie Hammer per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. "Hollywood Life" is a gossip site and most certainly NOT reliable. Parent companies are not an automatic indicator of reliability. WP:BIOFAMILY also applies, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Snuggums ( talk / edits) 18:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Even if you don't like Hollywood Life, you're ignoring all the far-beyond-mentions coverage that has been presented. -- Oakshade ( talk) 02:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll give you that Haute Living is a good article and source but the E! article is pushing it, it's just about them having a baby and it would be published if she were notable or not because of him. I'm still not seeing any significant coverage. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

It has nothing to do with me "liking" a source or not; I simply said it is not considered reliable. Also, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and she hasn't shown much notability outside of family affiliations. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 14:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The reason presented for keep is the significant coverage as per passing WP:GNG, not "she married to someone more famous." WP:NOTINHERITED is simply a straw man argument.-- Oakshade ( talk) 15:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nonsense; the WP:BIOFAMILY section of WP:Notability (people), as previously indicated, states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Besides, sources that do talk about her tend to really be more about her husband and/or unreliable. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 15:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

That's the point. Nobody is claiming this should be kept because of the topic ""Being related to a notable person in itself." It's because the the significant coverage existing as per passing WP:GNG. That ""Being related to a notable person in itself" line refers to those who don't pass WP:GNG as this person does. You might not like a reason a person is notable (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT), but that doesn't make them non-notable. And these sources about her primarily talk about her and simply mention her husband. -- Oakshade ( talk) 15:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

And I've yet to see any significant coverage of her. You found 1 maybe 2 articles? I don't find that significant. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

GNG is NOT an automatic keep; it simply is the bare minimum threshold. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with this. WP:Notability (people) has specific criteria for persons. The specific criteria exists for a reason, and should be put to use. One could say WP:BIO1E applies as well. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think I've ever seen anyone use the WP:GNG-is-not-enough defense. Actually GNG is the primary criteria of notability. Even WP:Notability (people) states, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below." And suddenly throwing in WP:BIO1E is going into a weird WP:VAGUEWAVE territory as it's nonsensical since the significant coverage spans five years on different aspects of this person's life. -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

IF she did meet GNG then it would be a stronger reason to keep but the fact remains that GNG is about significant coverage, which I have yet to see. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You keep saying that yet there is plenty of significant coverage strictly about her, contradicting your primary nom criteria. Even just found another article of significant coverage about her. [6].-- Oakshade ( talk) 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes but you need multiple sources of significant coverage, not just one or two, significant to me would be like 5 or 6 and of that, ones that talk about her career, otherwise youre just finding sources about her personal life and that doesn't make an article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually there are multiple sources now found primarily about this person. There is not and has never been a "like 5 or 6" rule in GNG. I've never seen an editor demand such a number. If you'd like WP:GNG to require "like 5 or 6" sources, you need to make your case on the WP:GNG talk page, not invent your own definition in a single AfD. Oakshade ( talk) 16:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Don't be so dramatic, I didn't demand anything, I was giving an example of what significant coverage to me is like. I didn't say "has to be 5-6" I said to TO ME it would like 5 or 6 because 2 or 3 articles isn't a significant number. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep: So the pieces are fluffy. So it's in the celebrity press. So this Chambers gal is a lightweight. So they're just as interested if not more so in hubby. I don't get it: she meets the GNG, which requires multiple sources, which doesn't require 5000-word essays. Filibustering on this response too not required. If LadyLotus doesn't like how the GNG is written and wants to tighten it up, she can stump for that over on the GNG talk page, and I'm all for it. This isn't the proper venue for it. Nha Trang ^Allons! 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Did I ever say I didn't like the way GNG is written? No. I said significant to me is like 5 or 6 not that is had to be 5 or 6, big difference. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I'm sure that you can appreciate that your personal preference as to how many references a subject should have to pass the notability bar doesn't at all affect longstanding consensus and practice, any more than does your personal opinion that a source must be strictly about the subject and the subject alone to pass the GNG, something the guideline itself explicitly states is NOT the case. Do you have a deletion rationale based on Wikipedia guidelines, rather than on what the guidelines would say if you could rewrite them? Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Oh my word, stop taking the whole "5-6" thing as me trying to rewrite guidelines, that's just going overboard. As far as I can tell there is no specific amount in GNG yes, that's why I said to me, significant coverage would be multiple sources like 5-6 articles, because 2 or 3 articles doesn't seem signficant to me. Also, significant coverage also says that that does not include mere mentions so, yea, "strictly about the subject and the subject alone to pass" (your words not mine), the subject should include a good amount of information about the person and not just mention their name. That is GNG. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
        • You keep claiming there are "mere mentions" of this person when in fact multiple entire articles, not "mere mentions", about this person have been presented. You can bold "mere mentions" a hundred times but that's not going to change the contradicting reality. And your opinion that you want "like 5 or 6" articles about this person to be considered significant coverage is noted, but that's not Wikipedia's WP:GNG stipulation and that's what's relevant in this discussion. -- Oakshade ( talk) 04:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
        • You're trying to rewrite guidelines when you place your personal opinion as to what the guidelines mean over what they actually say. The GNG stipulates "multiple" sources, period. Two's been the number felt to satisfy that for years now. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Omg stop, I wasn't trying to rewrite any guidelines, you two are going absolutely overboard with that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
            • Then stop claiming that "5-6 sources" is any manner of requirement, or that the lack of a half-dozen sources is a valid deletion ground. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
              • Then ACTUALLY read what I wrote. I didn't claim that guideline stated it HAD to be 5-6 sources and I said and I quote "Yes but you need multiple sources of significant coverage, not just one or two, significant to me would be like 5 or 6 and of that, ones that talk about her career". I said significant to ME would be LIKE 5 or 6. There is a HUGE difference if I had said per WP:GNG it HAS to be at least 5 or 6. Stop digging. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
                • Our exchange above was directly about WP:GNG when you threw in the "like 5 or 6" stipulation which gives the strong impression that's what you thought GNG required. If you weren't talking about GNG, your opinion that there should be "like 5 or 6" articles written about topics to be considered notable is clear, but that's not in line with GNG and that's what's relevant to an AfD discussion.-- Oakshade ( talk) 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Armie Hammer, as stated above. — Wylie pedia 04:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Just a WP:PERNOM? As to what exactly "stated above"? -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Not notable, only marriage-notability, all the red reasons above. And, despite AfDs being designed for "topics of discussion", I only !vote and don't get into lengthy discussions as all the above. — Wylie pedia 07:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

That's smart lol ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The arguments to keep having nothing to do with her marriage but that of passing WP:GNG as there are multiple articles specifically about her. Appreciate the WP:JUSTAVOTE admission ("I only !vote"). -- Oakshade ( talk) 14:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Appreciate the argument trolls. Do you keep that page open for whoever votes? Technically, I "suggested" so your just-a-vote fails here. My last comment for the topic: I don't give a shit and will probably never !vote at AfD again due to Oakshade. (edit: my VOTE still stands. It's poorly cited and has page issues still.) — Wylie pedia 15:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, your WP:JUSTAVOTE still stands. We were hoping you would have an at least somewhat in-depth persuasive argument to support your !vote as well as one that wouldn't sink to name-calling or foul language.-- Oakshade ( talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:UNCENSORED and "we"??? As for name-calling, where? — Wylie pedia 15:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Armie Hammer. Mostly unreferenced and has uncited, unfixed page issues. Borderline fancruft. — Wylie pedia 15:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

As per WP:AFD and its WP:BEFORE, if a page can be improved through regular editing (sentences that are "unreferenced" and "unfixed page issues"), then deletion is not appropriate. WP:GNG was the stated reason for this AfD and multiple articles directly about this person have been presented.-- Oakshade ( talk) 16:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Which is why suggested redirecting, rather than deletion. There are seven paragraphs of unsourced biographical information at the topic, which I consider a BLP violation, regardless of its factual truth. I came here from WPTV to offer my opinion and have done so. If none of my issues here, nor those above, can be addressed at the topic page, then the nominations and/or votes stand. — Wylie pedia 16:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

A redirect to her husband's article would be inappropriate as all the coverage presented is about her with only mere mentions of her husband. As there are multiple sources already in the article supporting a great deal of it, a WP:BATHWATER deletion is also inappropriate. If you feel there are some uncited sentences that are true BLP violations, you can remove them or add sources through regular editing. -- Oakshade ( talk) 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Because I strongly feel it should be redirected, I shan't work to improve. If I remove all the unsourced BLP fancruft, this discussion here would still occur and warrant deletion/redirecting even more. As for me, I'm going to enjoy my day off from work, unless you have blue link against that. — Wylie pedia 17:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

And your regular editing to eliminate any BLP violations you find in the article is much appreciated. I don't quite see your point of improving the article makes you prefer deletion even more, but still your article improvement efforts are encouraged. -- Oakshade ( talk) 17:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, you've avoided the issue of this person passing WP:GNG. Multiple articles about this person have been presented demonstrating passing it.-- Oakshade ( talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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.