Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debbie Rowe (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Rowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article fails nearly every rule of notability. Wikipedia rules state that being married to a famous person does NOT instantly confer notability on a person. Debbie Rowe has done nothing notable at all, besides being briefly married to Michael Jackson and bearing two of his children, who she did not raise. This page is literally a repeat of the Debbie Rowe section on the Michael Jackson page which is a far better summary of the relationship. There is absolutely no justifaction for a separate page on Rowe Paul75 (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It meets the basic rule WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") with multiple citations banked up at reputable sites like The New York Times [1], USA Today [2], CNN [3] etc. Media coverage extends over 13 years, from 1996 [4] to the present time [5]. No brainer, headed for snow country. WWGB (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily clears WP:BIO. She has extensive coverage in reliable sources and while she may have come to fame by marrying Jackson since then she has received extensive coverage for events that she directly participated in. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why did you nominate this again? How have circumstances changed since the first AFD nom (10 July 2009)? You can't just keep throwing spaghetti at the wall and hope it sticks. riffic (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Some articles on individuals known mainly for a relationship with a famous person are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Rowe is worthy of inclusion, and Cynthia Lennon would be a similar example. Pyrrhus16 12:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Waste of time. Obviously satisfies the GNG, kept overwhelmingly just a few months ago, and nothing has changed. WP:NOTINHERITED, the "rule" underlying the nomination, says in effect that spouses of the famous are not presumptively notable, and must independently satisfy the GNG, and the nominator does not claim that Rowe does not satisfy the GNG -- just that the article should be deleted regardless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While granting that the subject is only famous because she married Michael Jackson and is the mother of two of his children, the publicity associated with her doing these things is so extensive that it warrants having an article about her in Wikipedia. See WP:GNG. As indicated by others above, her notability has not changed since the prior nomination back in July. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2009 (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.