Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alyce Faye Eichelberger


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Alyce Faye Eichelberger

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Former wife of John Cleese. The article seems to have a recurrent issue with COI edits by what appears to be a PR person (see, , , , and ). Without the Cleese connection, it is highly unlikely that this person would be considered notable. As WP:NOTABILITY notes, notability does not transfer from Cleese to former (or current) wives and girlfriends. The subject of the bio seems to dislike some of the statements made in regard to her (despite appearing in reliable sources) - I propose deletion of this bio as a solution. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject has written a non-notable book, married a notable person and attended the same school as another notable person, none of which makes them notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made an alteration to the article. The subject is in fact the co-author of the book, which is actually quite a notable publication. The other author is Brian Bates who has a fair list of publications. (Oddly enough, he has subsequently written a book with John Cleese.) Whether her part in the co-authoring is notable, I can't say. Her name appears above his on the cover and in many references. Peridon (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 06:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Evidently notable" doesn't really add anything to the discussion. Evidence is not provided in the article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I hate to say, keep only if sourced, but this would be one of the times. I am reasonably sure she is notable on her own right as a therapist. I'm also sure the article doesnt give evidence for it--there's a source for an award, and but the only other sourced content is a very dubious bit of 2nd hand gossip unrelated to her individual notability. The article was written around the wrong premise about notability, but that can be fixed.  DGG (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Keep if sourced" is not a valid !vote. A Google news search for "Alyce Faye Eichelberger" -Cleese returns all of 2 results, one in German and one which actually is about Cleese. If she were a notable psychologist there should be eveidence of this. Can someone close this already? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DC, the part in bold. That's the !vote. The comment is supplementary, for discussion & explanation.. DGG (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep sources show the subject meets the GNG. RMHED . 18:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: reliable source coverage satisfies the general notability guideline, even discounting news coverage of her marriage to John Cleese. Career notable enough to win induction into Oklahoma State's Educational Hall of Fame, thus satisfies WP:BIO even if more sources discussing her career are not added to the article.  She doesn't earn inherited notability from her marriage to Cleese, but it shouldn't count against her either.  I think if we had a candidate unrelated to Cleese who studied under Anna Freud, wrote a notable book and was inducted to a university hall of fame, the article would be kept, indeed probably wouldn't be nominated for AfD in the first place.  Baileypalblue (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that induction into "Oklahoma State's Educational Hall of Fame" counts for anything at all toward notability outside the boundaries of OSU. I nominated this because the subject appears to have issues with some of the properly sourced information in the article and removing the article seems like the only way to satisfy that desire. Odd to see some of the keep !votes here from editors who are generally sympathetic to BLP issues, but whatever... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2009 (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.