Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy


 * 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, with an early close: highly notable, was persued by paparazzi, famous for being famous and a beautiful model, she continues to be in the news long after her death. I'm not sure that the nominator, a newbie who has voted three times in this discussion, is familiar with reasons for deletion. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy

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

This person has martial problems with her husband and this article is a stub and not important. Benjaminso (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, no valid reason for deletion given for a person who has 3,470 Google News hits. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Bad nomination. Related to a TfD nom where an editor said they would put this up depending on the results of one nom, but this is one that is easily sourced and notable.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, maybe it's the better idea instead of keeping this article, try redirect to the main article. Benjaminso (talk) 01:50 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the nominator appears to be disingenuous. A proper rationale for deletion should be provided. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Nominator now votes merge, so I would consider that a withdrawal of nomination. Also, his rationale, "This person has marital problems with her husband" makes me wonder if he knows anything about the subject (i.e., is he aware that 1-the subject is deceased, and 2-the subject was not significantly known for marital problems prior to death). Besides, neither marital problems nor being a stub are a reason for deletion. Eauhomme (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to John F. Kennedy, Jr. airplane crash. Benjaminso (talk) 17:04 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, highly notable and sourced. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the plane crash. Or any of the other several articles which could apply here. I also see Kennedy family, Kennedy curse... honestly, having read through this I am left with the impression that she is known for her death (of which the plane crash article is quite enough) and that even before that she was just married to someone who themselves almost inherited their own notability if this isn't actually the case. The article gives no other indication of her having done anything in her own right so I'm unsure where all these speedy keeps are coming from. Even the first line calls her the wife of a President's son(!) She went to school where she was "voted an "All-Around Beautiful Person."(!) She attened university then worked as a saleswoman(!) "With her height and cool blonde looks"(!). I am sorry for all the exclamation marks but this receiving several speedy keeps without a shred of evidence (the article has two sources, one of those is for the cause of the plane crash which killed her and which killed several others and which has its own article). The second source is used to say her husband's ashes were scattered alongside her. Her husband also has an article. Much of the description of the couple is of the two together, i.e. "The attractive couple became a popular paparazzi target, with gossip columns detailing where they ate and shopped and even covered the arguments they had." Do we need all these articles? I am sorry if I come across as loud or wrong. I'm just not sure what this means but I have just skimmed this article and can't see much that would encourage me to say "keep" at all. I had better ask if I am missing something? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  16:38, 2 September 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.