Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (2nd nomination)

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

Finding no evidence at all that would lead me to believe this person meets Wikipedia's criteria on notability. Her book (which has a separate article, also up for deletion for not being individually notable) may or may not qualify, but notability for having a Wikipedia article does not transfer from a book to its author or vice versa (so if anyone argues here that the book is notable, that's not applicable here). Google news search on her name shows only six articles ever mentioning that name: 3 in clear relation to the book and the incident the book covers (which has its own Wikipedia article), 3 strictly gossip oriented (accused by another of being drunk, having a catfight -- apparently the same incident). A regular Google search finds nothing of any value either really: a mere 1,800 hits with the name in quotes, with the sites in question being ones that fail Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources and the name being mentioned in trivial circumstances or clearly about the incident that already has an article. As a point of comparison, I picked someone I know who self-published a book and has a unique name so that there wouldn't be false positives, and it returns 6,000 hits with the name in quotes. If this person is honestly notable separate from the book/incident in question, I would love for someone to actually put reliable sources in the article documenting it. If it turns out the book is notable, then this should redirect to it, or vice versa. DreamGuy (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per recent prior AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:The "recent" prior AFD was deleted so this one could go up (procedural, it was a withdrawal of a withdrawal, so recreation works better), so if you had an actual Wikipedia-based reason to say Keep that you put on that AFD, that's now this one, so you ought to say it again. The still existing previous AFD is quite old (not recent) and included a lot of keeps but with no explanation of WHY anyone would think it's notable. This isn't a vote where people get to keep any article at all just by saying "keep" and nothing else, this is a discussion about its merits on Wikipedia. So far I've seen nothing from anyone that gives any reason how this article could possibly meet Wikipedia standards. Care to try? DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

::Please don't violate WP:AGF. I was referring to the August AFD, which I consider recent enough. I don't think it is appropriate to press the same issues on an AFD within a few months, it borders on disruptive editing. Your comments border on uncivil badgering. I find the reasoning in the prior AFD a sufficient basis to keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

:: I beleive that would be the AFD in August he is refering to - I doubt many peopel would be aware of the botched deleted AFD or consider it as counting. The main changes to the article since that date seem to be that a lot of the references have been questioned and removed by yourself. Taking that at face value then the article does indeed need refences, but from the last AFD that doesn't seem like much of a stretch at all. The google research above just seems like irrelevant handwaving to me I'm afraid. Artw 21:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:::WP:NOTAGAIN is relevant to Wolfowitz' rationale. With regard to the need for references, WP:BURDEN states that the burden of doing this falls on the person adding content. Unsourced content should be aggressively removed, and the remainder, if non-notable, should be deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per recent AFD. Artw (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:See my note above for exact same reason. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; WP:BIO is not satisfied. Prior AfD is not applicable now that this information from nom has come to light. Prior AfD keep was based on there simply being multiple mentions in RS, which have by and large disappeared. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Good sleuthing, DreamGuy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks, and thanks for doing the original legwork. DreamGuy (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to the book article (or the incident article, if that one is deleted) Doesn't appear to have notability out of having authored that book, and is only notable for that book. There is nothing notable on the article, apart from authoring the book. The links that were removed appear to be of very low quality (for example [http://twinbases.org.uk//ufo/govt-file2001-08.htm this] looked promising, but turns out that it's only promoting a book) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect ti the incident, under the assumption the book article will be deleted also. Better to have the redirect, so as to deal with people who might not see an article and decide to write one. DGG (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• comment Having had quite a look at this article and You Can't Tell the People (also up for deletion)I beleive that since her notability comes from the book and the books notability comes from her actions (questions asked in the house of lords, the stunty launch, etc)merging part of the book article into this one would result in a much stronger article - With the synopsis section being dropped since it is largely recovers ground already covered in Rendlesham Forest incident. Artw (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect agree with DGG. Build up, don't tear down, unless absolutely nessesary. And it's not absolute. AWT (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Merge the relevant parts to You Can't Tell the People, or Rendlesham Forest incident if the book is also deleted or merged there. WP:BLP1E applies, and the level of detail already in the incident article seems about appropriate if that is the only one kept. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: fails WP:BIO. No non-trivial (mere mentions need not apply) third-party sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I've merged in 'You can't tell the people', per the AFD for that article and my comments above. I've left out the synopsis as it seemed overly long and too much a retelling of events covered at Rendlesham Forest incident - if someone wants to put in a more condesed verison then I guess that would be helpfull. I would urge those voting delete or merge to take a look at this latest version of the article and consider changing their votes. Artw (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep--Per the new version, and the references that establish WP:N.--Jmundo (talk) 05:04, 5 January 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.