Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuela Testolini

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 delete. Wizardman 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuela Testolini

Finishing incomplete nom for User:92.232.121.101. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I have no clue why this was nominated but it should not have been. Well sourced, well known person. Passes WP:BIO. All the article needs is a cleanup. Rgoodermote 19:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first article referenced is little more than a list of every woman Prince ever slept with, the others are blurbs about the divorce filing with the appropriate "we want to stay friends" quotes. Relationship does not confer notability. She should be a blurb in the list of his wives/girlfriends on his page. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 20:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can easily be worked into the main Prince article. There's no need for a stub article on her, she is not of any notability except for once being in a relationship with Prince. The fact that she is a CEO is not relevant to Wikipedia, there are thousands of CEOs without their own articles. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The third web link is hardly more than a stub. Notability is not established by this reference. Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two seconds of Google News searching yields [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], which is just the tip of the iceberg. If this article does not develop more than a stub we can merge to Prince, but this topic is incontestably notable in its own right. Delete !votes that fail to address the potential, not just current state of the article do not carry any weight. Sincerely, Skomorokh 11:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As all those in favour of deleting have said above, merging is an option. She just does not warrant her own article. ALL of the information in the article is available in the Prince article. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Cleanup; the only question we address here is whether the subject matter is appropriate for an article, or to put it another way, whether it is possible to write an article on this topic which meets our five pillars. The proper forum for discussing a potential merge is the articles talkpage, and in this case a quick Google News search will show that there is plenty of information on this subject out there to expand the article such that it would not be appropriate to merge. Finally, merging and deleting are mutually contradictory, as to merge the content into the Prince article and then delete this article would violate the terms of the GDFL. Thus, all merge !votes are keep !votes. Hope this clears up the confusion for you, Skomorokh 19:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this is Articles for Deletion, seeing as I nominated it for deletion in the first place, but thanks for the clarification. Suggesting ad nauseum that this person triggers hits on Google News does not mean they deserve their own Wikipedia article. A search of my own name on Google News triggers three charity events I took part in where I raised a fairly large amount of money. You do not however see me campaigning for my own Wikipedia article using this twisted logic. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO1E and Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria apply here. Delete contents and redirect title to Prince_(musician)#Personal_life. SilkTork *^YES! 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please clarify why you think this topic is not independently notable in light of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? Thanks, Skomorokh 22:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Your first link is trivial - merely confirming that Manuela Testolini exists. It is important that a topic be verifiable for Wikipedia - however, by consensus we have gone beyond mere verifiability to the position that a person has to be "notable" to have a stand alone article. We have, by consensus, gone through a process whereby we can agree a person's "notability". A situation that often arises is that a person is in the news for one event, or for being associated in some way with a notable person. We have talked through this multiple times and by consensus agreed that a person who is notable for one event (such as marrying a notable person) and for whom reliable sources mention mainly in the context of that event (in this case marrying Prince), that that person would be mentioned in the context of that event (or person) in the notable event or person's article. I gave a link to the guideline on this: WP:BIO1E. I also gave a link to the related Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid_criteria. It's worth reading those and seeing how they directly apply here. This is a text-book example of how those guidelines work. Your links support the guidelines in that the first link is trivial, giving no explanation of notability, while the second two show her as Prince's wife. It is ironic that the third one is pitched at the idea that her and Jo Wood are trying to be recognised for themselves rather than for being the wives of famous people - yet the article wouldn't be written if they were not the wives of famous people! If you have a link that demonstrates or explains Manuela Testolini's notability other than being the wife of Prince, and were able to use that to build an article on Manuela Testolini to show how notable she is, then you can do that at any time. In the meantime it is more appropriate to redirect her name to the section in the Prince article in which it is mentioned that he married and divorced her. That, after all, is the sum total of her notability at this point. I hope that is clear. If you wish to have further explanation on how we decide notability please get in touch with me on my talk page. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 09:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball on a person's future success or 'potential.' Artene50 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 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.