Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Fevola


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Alex Fevola

 * – ( View AfD View log )

as per WP:NOTINHERITED, the main reason she gets coverage is because she is the ex wife of the infamous Brendan Fevola, take away him and coverage just shows she's been on dancing with the stars for 1 series. . would think the media wouldn't care less if she wasn't his ex wife. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. But nobody's saying "Brendan Fevola is notable and therefore Alex must be notable as well." Alex Fevola's notability comes - like all notability - from significant coverage in multiple independent sources. We must be careful to avoid the fallacy that says "if someone is related to someone notable then they cannot be notable themselves." It doesn't matter at all why the media reports on her. StAnselm (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * as per WP:NOTINHERITED  a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right. what has Alex Fevola done notable in her own right? if it's Dancing with the stars, an appearance in one series hardly warrants an article, her photography career is up with Australia's top photographers? LibStar (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Which article demonstrates her notability? The one titled Birthday girl Alex Fevola parties until dawn, or Alex Fevola confronts Lara over alleged tryst?  Trivial articles serving prurient interests are not enough to establish notability, and Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard... which this does not meet, nor do the sources.  Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer.   Dennis Brown (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sum total of her life thus far does equate to notability I'm afraid.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * could you explain what you mean? This is rather WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. She gets extensive coverage, and it might have started because of her husband but then there is a focus that moved over her. The Herald Sun and news.com.au feature her heavily, and while they might not be the best sources they are not the only ones (while others are not plenty either), and the news hits are easily 10 pages of different items, spanning about 5 years. While notability is not inherited, moving from a description as a relative of Brendan Favola to a proper biography may be perfectly in order once the information starts becoming of a nature totally unrelated to her husband - frankieMR (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you will almost every bit of media coverage mentions her ex husband/husband Brendan. LibStar (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of them do, yes, but not all of them, and a non negligible number of articles feature her exclusively, whether about the dancing show or other events (minor events, perhaps). The main thing that brought me to keep was that the coverage spans a fair amount of time, which really helps to diminish WP:TRANSIENT and WP:BLP1E - frankieMR (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability is not inherited. Absent significant coverage about her, then she would simply be the wife/ex-wife of an athlete.  However, notability sometimes does rub off.  Regardless of the reasons why she has garnered significant coverage, the fact remains that she has.  We may think the reason for the coverage is stupid, but that's a personal opinion.  I think Socks the cat got way too much press attention, but there you go. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep espcially per Whpq and Coccyx Bloccyx. She's not my cuppa tea, but she appears to have a lot of fans independent of "the ex".  Wikipedia has lots of articles about people who have gone beyond being in the news to independent notability, and she seems like one of those celebutantes. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. neither is having a lot of fans. significant coverage (besides her husband) in reliable sources is a reason for keeping. you should know that as an admin. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how I interpret his comment. Alex Fevola has essentially become a person who is famous for being famous.  There's a whole class of people like that.  For example, I can't fathom Kim Kardashian.
 * again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and irrelevant. This category of people have ample coverage in reliable sources.  Perhaps you are unwilling to accept any of this as representing significant coverage in reliable sources, but other editors don't share that view with you. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * as per my nomination [this search shows when you take away her husband Brendan she really isn't passing WP:BIO. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So exactly what i said above. You refuse to accept the coverage, and I disagree. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * the search basically confirms she has been dancing with the stars, that in itself doesn't guarantee one a WP article. the article claims her profession is a photographer, where is the coverage for this? LibStar (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The link you provided above gives several references, such as this one. StAnselm (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * all that article does is confirm she was on dancing with the stars, nothing more about her as a person except that she is a mother of 3. hardly indepth coverage of the subject, Alex Fevola. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To speak for myself, I only meant that like many people, she "has become a person who is famous for being famous." Wikipedia allows such articles.  I think she falls on the famous side of notable.  Reasonable people can disagree, so don't get stressed out.  Will it make you feel better of I !vote "weak keep"? Bearian (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment to illustrate point about overlap of coverage with husband when one searches on gnews just "Alex Fevola" it yields 112 gnews hits. when one searches Alex Fevola and Brendan it yields 89 gnews hits. surprisingly high overlap. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment : as per WP:NOTINHERITED  a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right. what has Alex Fevola done notable in her own right? none of the keep voters have demonstrated what Alex Fevola has done notable in her own right. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Unlike most reality TV shows, there is one little word in Dancing with the Stars that indicates that most if not all people on the show (other than the pro dancer partners) are considered STARS, at least by the network involved, and as such, it does convey notability. You keep discounting everything, but to me your over-reliance on ghits is actually against you this time - 112 vs 89 is 25% difference, which is pretty good, as some of those 89 that you are discounting as overlapping/associated notability, might actually be about Alex and mention Brendon in passing.  There is a very good reason why we don't use Ghits counts alone to determine notability.  How many Pippa Middleton articles avoid mentioning Kate?  How many Michelle Obama articles don't mention Barrack?  It's a curse to wives/sisters/children of famous people, but it is why counts of linked articles/mentions shouldn't be used against them.  And what has she done that is notable - well her book is held by 27 libraries in Australia, and features and was launched by our future PM too.  I don't know many non-notable people who announce their pregnancy in the biggest paper in Australia, either.  Yes it tabloid, yes it's the cult of celebrity, but unfortunately that makes people notable these days, probably moreso than being very clever or useful or helpful to mankind. The-Pope (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * appearing on dancing with the stars hardly is an automatic sign of notability, what they consider "star" does not equal WP article automatically. Consider similarly ex wife of Shane Warne, Simone who also appeared on dancing with the stars. Simone Warne redirects to her husband's article. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per extensive coverage. pretty clear case of notability rubbing off on a partner of another celebrity. Placing third in dancing with the stars in itself gives this person atleast minimum of notability needed for inclusion here. The Keep side has really strong arguments overall here.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is example of how WP:NOTINHERITED is wrongly practiced, coverage shows how subject is worth of note. Yamaguchi先生 16:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.