Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Staub


 * 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   no consensus. Merging is an editorial decision and is left to editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Danielle Staub

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think this entry should be deleted. Danielle or Beverley is actually too new to be included. Yes she was a "model" years ago and achieved some notoriety for her past transgressions but I think she is truly a flash in the pan at this stage. Reconsider her in five years if she lasts that long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moosiecat  (talk • contribs)  02:32, July 15, 2010


 * Comment. This AfD nom is User: Moosiecat's first edit, which I think it's unusual and probably not recommended for a user's first edit to be an AfD. But whatever; the notability of the person could be called into question. This person was on a reality show. She wrote a book (actually, had it ghostwritten). Judging by this article's history, she's a lightning rod for criticism and controversy. There's more I could say that would be germane to the situation, but I'm not allowed to, so... figure it out yourselves. I will say that this article, if it continues to exist, will probably have to be protected as it is a magnet for WP:BLP violations of the semi-literate variety. Whether this person meets WP:BIO is certainly questionable. I myself am on the fence. Carry on. Herostratus (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge. This page needs to merged with the "Real Housewives of New Jersey" page. There is no reason for this individual to have her own wikipedia page as she has had no strong defining moments that the other cast member have not also had.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.125.195 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This AfD nomination was created, but never transcluded. I've done so now. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

*Delete. The only cited sources are MySpace, her own website, and Amazon.com. That is not sufficient. Also, calling her a reality "star" seems to be a stretch. Kansan (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite a few sources other than MySpace, her own website, and Amazon.com, I'm afraid. Fox News New York Daily News CBS News     New Jersey Star-Ledger TV Guide ... there are hundreds. If she wanted publicity, she seems to have succeeded. --GRuban (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving the following comment from the Talk:Danielle Staub where it was mistakenly placed. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article really doesn't meet the WP notability guidelines. The biggest claim to fame of this person at this point is a sex tape. There are adult related wikis and also adult "imdb" style sites that she can be listed on. While a lot of reality people may have their own wikis most of them probably also have careers that will be making them more notable. This person is done.Woods01 (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sex tape? What sex tape? There is no sex tape mentioned in the article. Her claim to fame is a regular role on a national TV program, and a book, and extensive coverage given to both. --GRuban (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * GRuban, I assume you don't watch Real Housewives of New Jersey. A sex tape made news in the low-rent tabloids and presses and it was discussed in Season 2 episodes. Mike H. Fierce! 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is evident that a lot of people just plain don't like this person. I think our nominator and maybe some of our commentors are perhaps single-issue editors motivated by animosity toward this person. Something to perhaps consider. Herostratus (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per GRuban. I think there is enough coverage of this person in the press to establish notability, and notability doesn't expire. Article needs work tho. -- Nuujinn (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Real Housewives of New Jersey. There's nothing in here (or elsewhere) that would support having her own article. As it stands it's just a magnet for BLP violations, to boot. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Change vote to Weak keep per GRuban. However, this is not a clear case, and Herostratus accusing those of voting otherwise as having motivations similar to WP:IDONTLIKEIT is unhelpful. Kansan (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and not just because she's a prostitution whore. Mike H. Fierce! 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh oh I saw Mike H he canvas for this tyep of thing offwiki on facebook. he is a very bad and shud be ban by wikipedia, thx. he is violation of the guidelines and bylaw of wikipedia thx.--69.114.214.58 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between "canvassing" and thinking your own vote is funny. kthx. Mike H. Fierce! 17:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:N per GRuban. Also, LOL Mike H --Strangerer (Talk) 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per e. ripley. No real evidence of notability outside RHoNJ. Sceptre (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per e. ripley as well. easytoplease (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per e. ripley. Verkhovensky (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * merge This a blpvio magnet ans not significantly notable outside of one issue. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 25 July 2010 (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.