Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Lohan


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dina Lohan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

How the hell does this qualify for basic WP:N? People made famous by reality TV shows about themselves are not notable! She is only notable as wife of another nobody with whom she has four nobody children, the eldest of whom might be BORDERLINE notable, mostly for being another famous-for-being-famous drunkard/druggie/casual criminal, but the rest of the family? Yes, the page is sourced, but what are the sources? Mostly a load of gutter press celeb gossip that's less reliable than 1970s Italian cars! Vox Humana 8' 09:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lindsay Lohan, this person probably scrapes through the notability guidelines but even so the only reason she is notable is because of her relationship with Lindsay Lohan. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused by the tone of the nom, is that implying that Lindsay Lohan is barely notable? If it is, well, that's just stupid. If not, what does it mean? I'm neutral on the presence of this article, to be honest. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If she's only famous for Living Lohan then a merge there would be sensible. If she formally acted as Lohan's manager for a substantial period of time, as well as evidently managing other Lohan siblings, she may be notable as a prominent showbiz manager. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability by herself, famous relatives do not create independent notability either WP:NOTINHERITED. -- Phazakerley  (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Her relationship to someone else is not the governing criteria, nor the reason for inclusion, though it is exected that such relationship would at least be mentioned in a comprehensive article herein. What governs is WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG. See news coverage.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - She has appeared in enough media sources. Quite deserving of a Wikipedia page. However if deletion of the page is going to go through, it should be merged with Lindsay Lohan's page and put under "family" in her "Personal Life" section.StangerManor (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Does not matter to me whether or not she is related to someone notable (or infamous), just so long as she herself meets our notability criteria... which she does.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - quite famous and notable, even notorious. COI alert: we may be distant cousins by marriage. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - She simply meets WP:GNG with substantial repeated editorial discussion. Don't care who she is or what she does.--Nixie9 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2012 (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.