Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Rodriguez (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 keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rodriguez

This is a biography of a person, notable for only one thing, supposed friendship and Scientology "handler" of Katie Holmes. There are three references used on the page, one is a dead link, one is a FoxNews "slam piece" about Holmes being a zombie, and the third is an anti-Scientology website. In the external links, bare mention of Rodriguez is made, just more of the same "friend" or "minder". I can't see why this person would warrant a separate article, since I haven't been able to find continued mention of her in this only partially notable position in the past 3 years. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple News sources, also Additional web sources, a couple academic sources, and a book source. Whether or not the external links to news sources are currently live and available online is irrelevant, the question for those is verifiability, and these can be verified via news database archives. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt and also dismissing nominator's notion that being known as an alleged "mind control" handler of a major movie actress in and of itself is no little issue. __meco (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been established by both Google news and Google books. ←Spidern → 12:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough established sources to satisfy notability; I agree with Cirt that "link rot" is irrelevant; Assume good faith applies that the links at one time existed and if someone wants to put in the effort they can probably replace the links with something from Archive.org, anyway. The fact the nominator interprets one of the sources as a "slam piece" is irrelevant per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as it's not our place to judge the nature of the source, only whether the source is real and from a reliable source. Of course, with an article like this WP:BLP must be adhered to, but I don't immediately see anything here that runs afoul of that policy. 23skidoo (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Cirt. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced and relevent. Proxy User (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2008 (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.