Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amal Alamuddin (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. As this AfD is now 10 days old and there have been no new replies in 2 days, I am going to be WP:BOLD and close this. The subject continues to receive heavy coverage, as I have noted just now, when checking Google News search. Given that the keep arguments in this AfD outnumber delete arguments by 3 to 1 and given that the continued heavy coverage of the subject that I found just now bears out the keep arguments, there is no point in keeping this AfD open any longer, so boldly closing. Non-admin close. Safiel (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Amal Alamuddin
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was deleted at AfD, recreated, speedy re-deleted, and brought to deletion review. Bringing it back to AfD now as an administrative action, per Deletion review/Log/2014 April 28. I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the editor who wrote the original article on 4 April 2014, which was deleted on or around 14 April 2014. At that time the objection was to her notability, based on articles about her online. In my view there was then and there is now enough online material about her to grant her notability status. The other argument by those who supported the deletion was that she was borrowing her notability from George Clooney. However, looking at the bigger picture, she is worthy of our attention even if she broke up with Clooney tonight. Finally, her notability (online media coverage) is only going to increase from today going forward. We, the Wikipedia editors, have nothing to lose by taking the time to look for the online sources that support her notability and adding them to the article. Thank you. Fsmatovu (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep For whatever reason, she has enough interest from the public to have many secondary and tertiary sources from reputable publishers. She has represented a few high-profile cases as well. — Hasdi Bravo &bull; 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  |  16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- well sourced already with credible claims of notability, and it's not WP:CRYSTAL to note that more sources are bound to appear very shortly. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Like it or not (and it's not for us to be judging the so-called "celebrity" side of things), there are sufficient secondary reliable sources, and more will be coming along very soon. Edwardx (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Dont want to beat a dead horse, she is notable prior to the engagement. Kanatonian (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete While Ms Alamuddin has generated some news, she is not notable for an entry in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not just a repository of facts culled from newspapers. I specifically address this page and this problem in this article: http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedia-is-not-a-newspaper/ -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ms Alamuddin is not notable in her own right. her legal work is not notable. I count one TV appearance before she got engaged to Clooney. The only notability you are conferring upon her is because she is engaged to a movie star, so mention her in brief on his page. Her future notability is not a consideration. If that were the case, why don't you add everyone on the planet just in case they become notable one day? Also when you have to look for sources to confirm someone's notability that means that she is not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and should not be a place where editors regurgitate any old information from a newspaper. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep meets gng and rs. She has recurring accomplishments and is thus not just news. Valoem   talk   contrib  04:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: There will clearly be many people curious to know who George Clooney's partner is and a google and wikipedia are usually peoples first choices for information. I therefore believe it is in the public interest to have this information available and see no reason why people would be so adamant to delete this page when this is clearly a noteworthy individual whom people are likely to want more information regarding. David.Baratheon (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Looking at the info already given and well-sourced in the Wiki article and in her resume at the website of her Chambers, she has been involved in a number of high-profile cases at the ICC, which made her notable prior and without the relation to GC, and without the "news" angle (lawyers are hardly ever front-page news, unless they are specializing in a field that is bound to be front-page news in detail).--Zipor haNefesch (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Ms Alamuddin has not achieved notability in the context of her legal career or in her own right which is the intended subject matter for the proposed Wiki entry. At the present time she is notable only for being George Clooney's fiancée. The media / tabloid reports of her legal achievements to date also appear to have been exaggerated and therefore, if properly fact checked, are not reliable sources of information.
 * e.g. She has been widely reported as being a 'top' barrister and is said to be at the 'top of her career' but this is not plausible as she was only called to the bar in November 2010 and would also have needed to complete a period of training (pupillage) after being called:Bar Directory Search for Miss Amal Ramzi Alamuddin
 * e.g. She has been widely reported in the media as being the barrister representing Julian Assange, however no published legal judgment exists which names her as one of his representatives - other barristers are named. Similarly, none of the other high profile work that has been attributed to Ms Alamuddin (according to media reports) has been supported by information from trusted sources such as legal judgments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonSugar21 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, LemonSugar21. I agree that the claim to notability can't be based on seniority in her profession: as you say, she is still a long way from achieving that. But I don't think the article is using the word or idea of "top", is it? The year of her call to the Inner Temple is a little misleading, too, because she was called to the New York bar in 2002 and has apparently had a lot of legal experience that isn't advocacy in court. Without the Clooney relationship Alamuddin would still have some notability, though arguably borderline. Given her human rights background – a long-standing interest of Clooney's – [//www.google.com/search?q=%22Amal+Alamuddin%22&tbm=nws the volume of recent press] pushes her over the line. It's instructive to look at the deletion discussion for Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge in 2005. At that time Kate Middleton had absolutely no notability in her own right, but it was decided that press coverage made her notable. - Pointillist (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:Thank you for the welcome Pointillist and for the link to the discussion on Kate Middleton. I think this particular entry is distinguishable from Kate Middleton's entry because Kate Middleton's notability was directly as a result of her position as a girlfriend / long term partner to the heir to the throne. Royal girlfriends and mistresses have always been recorded throughout history, and such individuals have usually achieved notability simply for their relationship with royalty. While George Clooney may be considered 'Hollywood royalty' by some, I do not believe this case can be considered in the same league. My concerns regarding the media reporting on Ms Alamuddin's legal career is that the information seems to be coming from unverified (or unattributed) sources. I merely cited a couple of examples to illustrate that the news reports have not been accurate and are therefore unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonSugar21 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. These are courtesy pings to notify all the participants at the first AfD and the DRV  who don't appear to have !voted/commented here yet. - Pointillist (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if her only claim to fame was as George Clooney's fiancé (and it's not) she would be notable due to the press coverage that she has received, including the Radio 4 half hour documentary (which is a big deal).  However she does seem to have had an influential involvement in various soft left legal spats such as Julian Assange and Julia Tymoshenko.  JASpencer (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was pinged. I !voted to overturn the speedy at the DRV but did not give a view on the article. I have little doubt Alamuddin has received sufficient attention in the media about her professional achievements to meet WP:GNG. I also have little doubt that none of this attention would have occurred without Clooney. WP:INHERITED shows the difficulty WP has in dealing with such matters. John Schlossberg has had six discussions with three deletes ([//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Schlossberg_%283rd_nomination%29 here]), and is currently a blue link. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete she is notable for being George Clooney's girlfriend. If she wasnt, most of the reliable sources wouldnt talk about her. 3 of the sources arent even reliable. She fails WP:GNG and notability is not WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies the GNG through extensive substantial coverage. The "motive" for the coverage is irrelevant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt per lack of independent coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and Period I don't know where are all the delete comes from (probably from the lack of research)? I personally doubled the amount of refs, so I don't know where does the above editor come from with lack of independent coverage. Take a look: Daily Mail: 4 coverages, ABC News: 2 coverages, New York Daily News: 2 coverages, People Magazine: 3 coverages, followed by Us Weekly, IBT, E!, Radar Magazine, The Independent, The Irish Independent, and The New York Post: 1 each. That's more then enough for a speedy keep!--Mishae (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Dailymail - unreliable source, New York Daily News - unreliable source, Us Weekly - unreliable source, Radar Magazine - unreliable source LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * New York Post is also not a reliable source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true. Don't know where you got that from but according to WP:RS, magazines and tabloids (newspapers) are considered to be RS. As a matter of fact even Wikipedia articles on them say: Daily Mail; United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper and take a note of the establishment date too: 1896. And New York Daily News is the fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in USA. I don't know about magazines, but according to you, only People is an RS and the rest is BS???--Mishae (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What!? "Reliable tabloid" is essentially an oxymoron. Daily Mail has also been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN. Sales do NOT equate to reliability. It's just marketing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't understand something? But then give me a good reason why they are not considred RSs in your opinion? Are the sources are left or right wing? I certainly didn't took them out from the opinion corner did I? From as far as I can tell, according to you, an RS is The New York Times, news media coverage, like CNN, Fox News, ABC, etc, and People Magazine, as the only RS in your opinion.--Mishae (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Daily Mail has been repeatedly declared unreliable due to frequent fraudulence. FOX News has also been frequently criticized for fraudulent reports against liberals (notably numerous lies about President Barack Obama), so I'd say it's not a reliable source either. While political bias isn't explicitly said to make sources unreliable, I for one strongly discourage sources that are notorious for bias. People magazine I would also strongly discourage since when talking about things like celeb couples (such as when they report a couple has ended their relationship), they often favor one celeb over the other. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, lets assume that every source is unreliable, then whats the point of Wikipedia, if in your opinion if a source makes a single mistake, its no-no?--Mishae (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very oversimplified. New York Times is most certainly reliable, and so are ABC and CNN. The problem is that most of the reliable third-party sources covering here either don't provide much on her own person and/or are mainly about George Clooney. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. I'm almost at the end of the January 2014 discussion about the Daily Mail, and it said that the consensus agreed to use it for Sports and Celebrities with caution. So, here is the deal, give me a link of celebrity RSs that in your opinion are an RS and I will happily add them. Furthermore, in my opinion if an article contains an unreliable source, its better then no source at all. Plus, we can always back it up with a reliable source as well. Sounds like a plan?--Mishae (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Forget that since we have BBC sources anyway which you have labelled as reliable so we don't need to worry about the daily mail. I dont understand why some of you are so desperate to get this article deleted when clearly people will want to know who she is. A simple google of "BBC Amal Alamuddin" brings up many results such as: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042cq8p David.Baratheon (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 00:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per WP:ATA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is also this conversation involving the unreliability of the Daily Mail, and this one about stopping use of the Daily Mail. I think any magazine that calls itself a gossip source is not reliable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you got me on the Daily Mail, but then why it wasn't blacklisted??? By the way, can you give me links regarding the rest?--Mishae (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been blacklisted on WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * having a large number of questionable sources isn't necessarily going to help here. It might be better to stick to the main broadsheets (in the UK, that's the Financial Times, Glasgow Herald, Guardian, Independent, Observer, Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Times, and Sunday Times), serious weeklies (e.g. the Economist, New Statesman, and Spectator) and the BBC. I think we would all agree that they are reliable, so if they discuss her and her career then it will establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is quite correct that their motive is irrelevant. Also bear in mind that there's no suggestion that Alamuddin wishes to have a Wikipedia article&mdash;she might be much happier without one (q.v. Seth Finkelstein I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here). - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability seems clear. -- do ncr  am  23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * care to provide an analysis of the refs used or should I do so? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you should give me a link where it says that the New York Post and New York Daily News are not an RS. If you will convince me, I will substitute them with The Huffington Post, a no-brainer RS.--Mishae (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post is known for bias and fraud in things like politics, science, medicine, and celebs. I wouldn't trust them under any circumstance. They're also a liberal equivalent of FOX News in terms of bias and distortion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, lets be clear, Wikipedians don't ask permission from their notables, if they want an article here or not. Like, Wikipedia is not an advertising agency, who asks: "Do you wanna be a part of this..."--Mishae (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I know that. There just seems to be a slightly inappropriate tone emerging in some of the posts here, as if Alamuddin is claiming notability that she doesn't deserve. I just wanted to put the point that she might be delighted to see this article deleted and salted. In fact, perhaps she's one of the Delete !voters herself&mdash;but which one...? Spooky. - Pointillist (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. This is bordering assume good faith.--Mishae (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just mucking about :-) Pointillist (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If we will say "this not RS", and "this is not RS", we end up we conservative Wikipedia, where only anti-liberal media is allowed. Next CNN will do something stupid and you guys will say, its a BS not RS???!!! Like honestly, we need to have a boundary here, if such refs are not welcomed by Wikipedia, why we can't blacklist them? Besides, Fox News although biased is used on many conservative-related articles, starting from George W. Bush and ending with Rush Limbaugh and his gang of biased reporters such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Care to explain the O.K. here?--Mishae (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, I also wouldn't trust FOX News, which is highly conservative. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if its used on articles relating to conservatives themselves, like the members of the Republican Party? I personally wasn't surprised when I saw Dick Cheney article carry up to 3 Fox News RSs, to me its like, big deal. He is a conservative, the source is too. Same thing with The Huffington Post, saw it being used at the same article more then 3 times (6 I think). What about USA Today?--Mishae (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason why I wouldn't use FOX News and Huffington Post is because they often distort things with their political bias. There are non-distorting sources with political leans which are quite reliable, such as The Daily Telegraph (conservative) and The Guardian (liberal). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then explain me why am I seeing those highly conservative refs on every conservative related article????--Mishae (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure, but that isn't the focus for this AfD per WP:WAX. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your discussion points to one of the major flaws in Wikipedia: Wikipedia's policies and software do not allow easy distinction between the reporting of an event and the truth behind that event. It doesn't matter which source you use, it will have bias. There is reliable information in unreliable sources and unreliable information in reliable sources. The issue here, and on many pages similar to this throughout Wikipedia, is that newspapers are being used to source an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. Taking reports from newspapers directly into Wikipedia devalues both the encyclopedia and the news. Ms Alamuddin mayy merit a line on Mr Clooney's page but she does not merit this page, which is made by editors who think news is notability. I discuss this further in the link I gave above.-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I perfectly understand your point, but here the issue: What sources are required for celebrities? Like, I see them being mentioned in People, Us Weekly, and other mainstream magazine when I go to local Cub Foods, yet over here people call them unreliable???? Like, celebrities don't get mentioned on CNN or ABC a whole lot, unless they are being invited by The View, but then it might add an undue weight by saying that Amal Alamuddin appeared on the View and said blah, blah, and blah about blah, blah, and blah. If you are so into redirecting, lets redirect Alexandra Kerry to John Kerry with all her films, although wait, she deserves an article because she is an actress, although not as famous as George Clooney, I guess.--Mishae (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:WAX for how the Alexandra Kerry is not relevant to this AfD. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where the gossip is from but removing RSs such as ABC News is unacceptable. As far as engagement goes, look here and here.--Mishae (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Times is definitely reliable, but Mirror is not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And neither he or she has confirmed it. A source says they were engaged, but it's just hearsay. Until a RS says they he/his rep or her/her rep confirms it, it's gossip. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #09F,-4px -4px 15px #9F0;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F90,-4px -4px 15px #F09;">TALK 01:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this ref suggests otherwise. Take a look at the title, or its another gossip?--Mishae (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sufficient to verify engagement, provides no explicit evidence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure its sufficient, its a part of Personal life segment, otherwise its one sentence in a section. What do you mean that it doesn't provide explicit evidence? Isn't Star Tribune and Los Angeles Times are RSs or in your opinion they too just like the Mirror is a gossip? I thought you called them reliable???--Mishae (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm fine with the wording "According to her law firm". However, them celebrating their engagement isnt notable. <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #09F,-4px -4px 15px #9F0;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F90,-4px -4px 15px #F09;">TALK 02:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with Star Tribune isn't reliability, it's a concern of content. The problem with "according to a London law firm" is that it doesn't give the name of the law firm. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Lady Lotus doesn't mind it, RS is RS. Further question, is this and this considered to be notable content? Also, should I use this link double-ref the engagement?--Mishae (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, reliability isn't a problem for Star Tribune. However, it doesn't add to notability. Those other links don't add to notability either. They only quote anonymous "sources". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is trip to Tanzania and Seychelles any good? Like, its not Daily Mail, People is much more reliable I think.--Mishae (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely more reliable than Daily Mail, but again that source just contains input from unnamed "sources". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. I added CNN and The Chronicle, is Sunshine Coast Daily is considered reliable?--Mishae (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A trip to Tanzania? It's not encyclopedic and it's not even interesting. I'm just wondering if you are going to include information about every restaurant they visit or party they go to? It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. And why is this discussion taking place here. It should be on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hah! You gave a link to Daily Mail which was removed from the article. I found the same info in The Chronicle, a much more reliable source. As far as restaurant goes, heck, if it will be mentioned in a reliable source, I will provide a room number at the hotel they will stay in too, along with breakfast, lunch, dinner and orgasm (if any will be reported by the news media). Maybe its not interesting, but can we have a view of the rest of the panel? Plus, I agree, it is an encyclopedia, but even Angelina Jolie article have something being said about travels to Africa and adopting kids from there and even helping them as a humanitarian worker. Like, really, I too care less what Angelina Jolie is doing in Africa, but you know, not everyone agrees with me. As far as discussion goes, you know, here my two cents, I updated the article with some reliable sources, and I hope it wont get deleted, since it shows plethora of reliable sources. If however, an uninvolved admin would like to delete it still, will he be kindly be asked to move the article into mine and creator's sandboxes, so that we can finish it up? Cheers to everyone!--Mishae (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can move it into your own sandbox yourself. Reports on celebs having meals together, staying in the same hotel, or what they do behind closed doors is regarded as trivial. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Trip to Tanzania though is different, or its considered to be not news either?--Mishae (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on what happens during the trip. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of their engagement, honeymoon I think, although it doesn't specify it. It was reported by The Chronicle and Sunshine Coast Daily. Look into the Personal Life section of the article, the refs are there.--Mishae (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Usually a honeymoon is after the wedding. Angelina Jolie went to Africa on a high profile UN humanitarian mission. Just because something has a source, even a reliable one, does not mean it can be included in Wikipedia. Not only that but a blanket ban on particular sources is nonsense -- sometimes unreliable sources have reliable news (National Enquirer: John Edwards, Gary Hart, Rush Limbaugh) and sometimes reliable ones have unreliable news (Rathergate). Being in the news does not confer notability. Reliable sources do not confer notability. Ms Alamuddin is not notable in her own right, so it doesn't matter if you use a reliable source. If the New York Times reported she went to a restaurant that would still not make it worth inclusion here. If you want to report news, go to a site that lets you report news. This site is an encyclopedia.-- Sparkzilla talk! 04:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, this is getting off topic, this whole 'personal life' discussion needs to be on her talk page. This is strictly about if the article should be kept or not. That being said, unless it says their honeymoon (which is after a marriage) then I think just a vacation is certainly NOT notable. Engagement party. No. Marriage. Yes. Honeymoon. Yes. Anything else. No. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or gossip mag, we don't need to know certain details about them <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #09F,-4px -4px 15px #9F0;">LADY LOTUS • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F90,-4px -4px 15px #F09;">TALK 11:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * and I clearly agree with the fact that this is an encyclopedia, but the thing is is that since I am new to the whole celebrity topic, I don't know the difference between the inclusion of encyclopedic material and gossip mag. And I am not trying to make Wikipedia a fan site either, however we can assume that editors who edit article on sports are probably fans of specific team, otherwise they will care less. Lets be clear, I came to this article because it was mentioned for deletion, I add some bad refs but then I added some good ones, the result: an updated article, which hopefully wont be deleted or merged per some keeps including mine. I know that user Sparkzilla is against the article as a whole, and therefore is entitled to his opinion. What I don't want to hear is criticism from him about my old refs. All of us learn, and all of us make mistakes, and all of us jokes (i.e. my reporting on everything was merely a joke, and should have taken with a grain of salt rather then criticism). I don't criticize Sparkzilla for being blocked two years ago, do I?--Mishae (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2014 (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.