Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson (3rd 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 no consensus. Ugh. However, as Milowent says, "Whether people like Sarah Larson should be notable in the history of civilization is also not what we are here to judge.". Whether they should appear in something which purports to be an encyclopedia might have been a more accurate way of putting it, but since WP:GNG is irredemably skewed towards accepting notability based on tabloid trivia, here we are. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Larson

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

This person is a former cocktail waitress who appeared on one episode of a reality TV show and dated George Clooney for a year. None of these things, nor all three of them, merit a Wikipedia article. Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. That this survived two prior AfDs is ridiculous. Nightscream (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first two arguments in the March 2008 AfD seem well-reasoned, but then the third editor says "It's not our job to make value judgements. Since she has been noticed in several ways by reliable sources, she is notable." This is a ridiculous comment. It is entirely our job to make judgements of notability, and she has none. Dating George Clooney, being on one episode of a reality TV show and a brief mention of being signed by a modeling agency is not "several ways".

A subsequent editor comments to agree, and then another one, JesseRafe, comments to say that an newbie Wikipedian argued to keep the article on the basis of giving readers who want they want to read, but that's a tabloid's argument, and not an encyclopedia's. Moreover, JesseRafe references that article's talk page, but most ironically, sixof the nine editors who've chimed in to date on that talk page have argued for deleting the argument. Those who argue for keeping it do not reference any Wikipedia guideline or criterion for notability; they simply argue that tabloid argument of not "disadvantaging" the readers who want to read this (even if there's little substance on Sarah Larson for an article), and another argues, "It's freaking wikipedia. It's not Britannica. It's ok. I enjoy reading stupid, senseless articles on here". How exactly were these the arguments on which consensus was assessed??? As for the last two editors in the March 2008 AfD, one was for keeping it, saying, as the entirety of this argument, "I came here from the article, I don't check AfDs.", whereas the the editor who voted to delete gave a way more reasoned argument.

The arguments for keeping the article in the June 2008 AfD are particularly threadbare. One editor said that she received plenty of significant coverage establishing notability. If this is true, where are they? That editor also said "This coverage is still continuing now", and points to a source reporting her being signed up by a modeling agency. But merely being signed up by a modeling agency doesn't make you Cheryl Tiegs or Cindy Crawford or Kate Upton. Many people are signed with agencies; that doesn't make them notable. If her modeling makes her notable, then why has she not been covered in stories in the modeling industry press? Has anyone heard of her since those two seconds in 2008 when she was merely in tabloids for dating George Clooney? Another editor remarked, "once notable, always notable". In fact, she's never been notable. Another editor said, "Still getting considerable press for events after her breakup from Clooney. Looks like she'll be around for a while." This a joke.

Not only does Larson not bear notability, but the consensus of editors at the two AfDs and the article's talk page clearly reflects this. This article should've been deleted four years ago. Nightscream (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage is routine at best, notability hinges entirely on dating Clooney which is not enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update, An editor just added the fact that she was later dropped by the modeling agency in question, with a citation. In other words, the one thing independent of Clooney or that one reality TV episode that her apologists argue as the basis for keeping her article lasted about as long as her relationship to Clooney. Again, not notable. Nightscream (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She wouldn't be here if she hadn't dated Clooney. WAGs are non-notable unless they established notability for themselves, which Larson clearly hasn't. Not notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable by virtue of the numerous independent sources which comment upon her. The previous discussion was a clear keep and this nomination just seems to be a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT contrary to our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Numerous sources often comment on the people whom celebrities' date; that doesn't mean that they merit articles. That's goes directly to WP:Notability, and has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She just seems like someone who dated someone notable, which doesn't make her notable herself. She was on Fear Factor, but we certainly aren't creating articles for everyone who's ever been on a game show --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpeakFree and others. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nightscream's comments above. While we can't be judgmental about what a famous person does, since 2009 (or so) we have been more discriminating about having properly sourced BLPs. The sources cited in the past AfDs are not reliable. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she's notable enough to get hundreds of clicks a day (http://stats.grok.se/en/201203/Sarah%20Larson), and being on People's 50 most beautiful list is an accomplishment itself. She's notable, maybe not deservedly, but notable nonetheless. JesseRafe (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added multiple additional citations. The subject meets WP:N through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including such media as People magazine, Us Weekly, The Sun, the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Daily Mail, among others. Note that the sources I've added are articles about her, not articles about Clooney that mention her in passing. Some of it is a little tabloidy, sure, but not completely or irredeemably so. I also re-added the part about her being named to People mag's "100 Most Beautiful" list, which had been removed just prior to the start of this AfD, and from what I can tell from the sources, represents some of her notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. Notability is not inherited, even from movie stars. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's notable enough to meet WP:GNG. I am not aware of the rule that says someone who got significant news coverage over an extended period of time primarily because of who they dated is excluded from GNG. Larry Fortensky, anyone? Of course, one night stands like Sara Leal are not notable, but that is not what we are talking about here. Whether people like Sarah Larson should be notable in the history of civilization is also not what we are here to judge.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because substantial changes were made on March 31. Sandstein 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources may have been added, but they're rehashing the same thing; this woman just drew really good luck in winning a network game show (a category where only reality show winners, millionaire Jeopardy, WWTBAM winners and the rare board runners like Michael Larson ever get an article here) and getting a Hollywood bachelor for awhile. There's also a huge difference as Fortensky actually married Liz Taylor at the very least, while Larson never got near an engagement with Clooney. Using sources (and low-quality ones at that; when you're dragged down to the Daily Mail and Sun there's no further you can do down under our sourcing suggestions) rehashed several times gives me little confidence in this article. Nate • (chatter) 09:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fortensky was just one off the top of my head to illustrate that the coverage of such things goes back to pre-internet days. Many many celebrity spouses are not notable at all (say Kevin Grandalski, you'd have to google of course) because they don't get any coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Vast majority of sources (including the added ones) are either unreliable/tabloid, or mainly about George Clooney. This looks like a WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTINHERITED situation to me. The list of people who don't get Wikipedia articles includes most game show contestants, most girlfriends of celebrities, most Vegas cocktail waitresses, and most failed models. Being the combination of all four doesn't add up to anything more. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most, but not all. I wonder why people hate Sarah Larson so much. Maybe its because she inexplicably meets GNG when so few worthy people do!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to close this; however, as I read the article and the sources, checked the page view stats, read the comments, did a bit of checking and found a more recent book source which discussed her, I was swayed toward keep. I may not be interested in this person, but clearly a lot of people are. We personally, either as individuals or as small cliques of Wikipedia editors, do not determine notability - we have agreed to let reliable sources do that, and the sources indicate some notability for this person under our guidelines. However, the delete !votes significantly outweighed the keeps, and while some were not on-policy ("per nom" or variations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT), others were citing WP:ONEEVENT or making good points. While the keep comments were also making good points and citing GNG, I wasn't sure there was enough consensus for a keep. I didn't want to close this as a delete, as I feel that would be inappropriate. Nor did I want to close either as no consensus or keep, as I felt I might be introducing a WP:Supervote. So I am not closing, but adding my opinion, and hoping to assist another closer to mark this as No consensus or even keep. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:37, 10 April 2012 (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.