Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Posner

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 No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Posner

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

Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod. Notability is not inherited, and this appears to be little more than an advertisement for her charity. Ray^Talk 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Agree it has the feeling of an ad rather than article. Needs major improvements to keep, including titling the refs, which now read 1, 2, 3...with no explanation of what you are clicking on or where it might take you. Other problems as well, including a large section on her husband. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
I disagree with you. The entry succeeds from where I originally found it. However, today I have reedited it down to focus on essential parts. Ms. Posner-Ward's communal dog rescue is the only one of its kind in the world, and it specializes in large breeds, including many breeds rarely seen or found. It was in ad form when I first found it earlier this week. It has been revised and revamped. I edited out the comments by Burt Ward, but considering he and his wife work together, they were relevant. There exists no other animal shelter and rescue for large dogs elsewhere in the world. Perhaps a photo illustrating the location would prove the point. Ms. Posner is, despite her father and husband, a public figure in her own right as she founded thisunique nonprofit. Cocoruff (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Cocoruff[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think she passes the bar given the People article and the lawsuit, see also [1][2] [3] Nuujinn (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - One is left wishing the article was about Gentle Giants and not about the co-founder. In my opinion, she clears the bar on her status as co-founder of that. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The org may be notable, but she isn't. Lionel (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG (and other WP:N guidelines). That a related org and her husbandf are notable or possibly notable does not make her notable. Novaseminary (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recent citations have been added to the article which demonstrates the subject passes WP:GNG. Additionally, other reliable sources are available from Google News Archive. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. The GNG requires extensive coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of said subject. Acting as a proxy for a more notable person in a lawsuit, or being mentioned in the context of a more notable person or organization, does not suffice. She gets mentioned for being the wife of a famous actor. She gets mentioned for being the child of a rich man. She gets mentioned for being the child of a rich man suing in a legal dispute related to the death of said rich man. These merit, at best, a paragraph in the bio of her husband and father, respectively. These are, almost the classic examples of WP:NOT#NEWS and wp:inherited. Ray^Talk 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Think again. WP:GNG states "that sources address the subject directly in detail so no original research is needed to extract the content". She has received that and then some in all the citations provided. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)R[reply]

- - - What content? We've got lots of details on her pet adoption service, and a play-by-play of a particular lawsuit she was involved in concerning her inheritance. This is not encyclopedic coverage of a person's life. It's regurgitation of slow news day fodder. Ray^Talk 23:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - my belief has always been that a person who is in the news for many years, for many different reasons, is notable, period. I can only think of one truly odd case in which the outcome of an AfD has been different, but your results may differ. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2010 (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.