Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Schultz (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Cristina Schultz}} ([{{fullurl:Cristina Schultz|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Schultz (2nd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

BLP with no known sources showing notability; no known secondary sources. Several news reports show notoriety (high-priced call girl; married an interesting person; pleaded guilty to tax evasion; divorce proceedings). There have been attempts to sanitize the article, and there was a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AMiquonranger03&diff=237632067&oldid=237622665 legal threat]. However, actions by misguided editors are not a reason to keep an article. From WP:BLP1E: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Appearances in the various magazines as a model would qualify as WP:N, hence warrants an article separate from the 'incident'  Chzz  ►  15:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Chzz, this is beyond WP:ONEEVENT at this point. §FreeRangeFrog 19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Far more notable than Patrick Syring, which has overwhelmingly failed two AFDs, but BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS applies to both articles. But it's absolutely not true that there are not "secondary sources": there is substantial independent coverage that is cited in the article. THF (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Clear notability. TJRC (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Question What does "notable" mean in a BLP? I agree that {{nowrap|1=sex + folly == interesting}}, but what policy says it is notable? WP:BIO requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". WP:SECONDARY suggests we need a source with an analysis of the affair to show Schultz is notable. Does a high degree of salaciousness overcome non-notability? Also, Chzz implies that Schultz is appearing in magazines as a model. Presumably we could find a source confirming that, but when is a model notable? Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Plenty of secondary sources including taxation websites and also news articles on several legal aid websites supporting her career choice for paying off the student loans. I know the media prefer to focus on the salacious in reporting on her but the tax issue and confiscation of the earnings both appear to have more notability than her career on serious websites so editors (and the article) should not focus only on that with regards to WP:N. Wayne (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. That two LA newspapers published stories relating to this person seems to imply some small amount of notability. The articles needs more secondary sourcing though. Aubergine (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2009 (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.