Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Hill

:{{la|Virginia Hill}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Virginia Hill}})

Does not pass general notability, she is only connected to other notable people Cox wasan (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Delete WAGs don't inherit notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. She's the subject of coverage (either biographical or fictionalized) in multiple reliable sources, viz. the biography listed under "Further reading," another biography by David Hanna, a Joel Schumacher film, continued news coverage. Yes, she probably wouldn't have received this coverage if she weren't the girlfriend of a notable person, but it's still coverage; WP:NOTINHERITED says that people aren't notable just for being related to other notable people, not that we should ignore our ordinary notability standards and discard RS coverage because the person is related to a notable person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - Covered in reliable sources. I agree that she has inherited her notability, but the coverage establishes that as notable nonetheless. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Roscelese. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep{{spaced ndash}}The topic passes notability guidelines per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• note to closing admin this user tends to recycle identical statements in other AfDs. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tyler_Shields&diff=prev&oldid=451677080], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FJack_Clough&action=historysubmit&diff=451673289&oldid=451540869], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zeina_Awad&diff=prev&oldid=451668965] LibStar (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment - It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis seems to be upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment - This article very likely shouldn't have been referred to AfD in the first place. Seems to be another hasty nomination to delete, for whatever reasons, rather than improve, verify and expand Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:*Comment - I added a rescue tag to this article, because the topic is actually notable. Perhaps there should be more sophisticated criterion to nominate articles for deletion. As it is now, anyone can nominate any article without providing just rationale for doing so, instead just making basic, generic statements such as "doesn't pass general notability", etc. If nobody comes along to correct the injust nomination, the article apparently is just deleted, based upon unqualified, general statements that don't actually correspond with the required source searching before nominating an article for deletion. This definitely makes it very easy for people to censor Wikipedia, for whatever subjective reasons. Here's how it's done: nominate an article for deletion, make a generic statement to misqualify the deletion without actually checking for reliable sources to establish topic notability, wait and see if nobody comes along to correct the faulty nomination, then watch the article be deleted. There needs to be better checks and balances in this process to prevent notable topics from being deleted without actual qualification per Wikipedia guidelines for the deletion to occur. This is a significant problem, because it is very likely that notable topics are being deleted. It's easy to type five or six words and wait to see if an article will be deleted, whereas it takes more time to refute inferior nominations. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

::*Additional Comment - It's also easy for people to message one-another to delete articles, often per an "as per nom" rationale, regardless of the actual notability of topics. If nobody comes along and provides an objective analysis to refute the deletion of an article nominated per generic statements, then the article disappears. Hopefully Wikipedia can introduce better checks and balances to prevent this type of simple censorship that is easy to accomplish. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable female criminal, article needs to be expanded. Loads of sources that establish notability. - DonCalo (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - repeating,, notable female criminal. thats it.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2011 (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.