Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth Smith


 * 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. لenna vecia  15:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Beth Smith

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

Fails WP:Notable. She is only known because of her marriage to a celebrity. The case could also be made that it violates WP:Attack page since (IMO of course) a reasonable person reading this article would think that its main purpose is to present negative information on its subject. Anyway, who cares? The wife of Dog the Bounty Hunter is not the same thing as the wife of Caesar.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a mass of trivia with no real evidence of notability. Lady  of  Shalott  15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Although I don't personally feel she is particularly notable, should probably does meet the criteria for notability since she appears regularly on the TV show Dog the Bounty Hunter on A&E network. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article fails to show any notability, this is just a mass of trivia and gossip. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and consider nominating the other Chapmans mentioned in the article (apart from Duane I suppose). Disembrangler (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that they are both real people and characters in a TV show. Even the most minor TV character seems to get an article here. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may seem odd to have lower standards of notability for fictional characters than real people, but because of the way notability interacts with WP:BLP, that's basically where we end up. Disembrangler (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not transitive through marriage. As a character in a TV show, could be mentioned in the article on that show. Not all characters have or warrant their own articles. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Seems to be borderline on WP:GNG, some items in google news search (but a very common name makes it difficult to sort through quickly). I say strong delete if this the person were confirmed through OTRS and wished it deleted, but at this point her public exposure indicates a mild interest in the article.  Definitely an attack magnet, so I'd envision a possible semi-protect if warranted.  — Ched :  ?  11:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She is not just known as the wife of Dog the Bounty Hunter, but also as a part of the show. If she were not involved notably with that, then WP:NN would apply, but she is so it doesn't. The article should be renamed to Beth Chapman, by the way. Eauhomme (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But this being a reality show, we're not talking about her being known for separate things. Why isn't it enough to cover her role in the show as part of the show article (Dog the Bounty Hunter), especially considering how weak/short that is? Disembrangler (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it weak/short? I would put her #2 behind Dog and ahead of Leland. Eauhomme (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess it wasn't clear that "that" referred to the Dog the Bounty Hunter article.Disembrangler (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought you meant her role in the show, which clearly is significant. Eauhomme (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, per User:Disembrangler. ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable, plus the article has BLP issues and is a vandal magnet. Garion96 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Vandal magnet is not a valid deletion rationale, though I have no argument with BLP concerns. Eauhomme (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I said "plus". Besides, a "valid deletion rationale" is different for everyone. Garion96 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 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.