Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gloria Rand


 * 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   redirect to William Shatner. Consensus indicates she fails WP:GNG, but redirects are cheap. Secret account 05:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Gloria Rand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article tells us that Rand is an actress - but fails to tell us anything whatsoever about her acting career. Instead, it goes into great detail regarding her ten-year marriage to William Shatner. Being married to someone does not confir notability, per Wikipedia guidelines, and Rand's acting career seems to be almost entirely undocumented, as far as I can ascertain - and self-evidently insufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:NACTOR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Gloria Rand clearly meets the general notability guideline because of the wealth of published sources about her life. Her notability does not need to be conferred by her acting career; the extensive coverage of her marriage is just as valid a justification of notability. Consider, for example, the Luo Yixiu article, which is a current featured article candidate. Luo Yixiu is notable solely because of her marriage to Mao Zedong. I see nothing relevant that makes this case different. Neelix (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are a 'wealth of published sources about her life', why does the article note cite them? Why does it tell us nothing about her life other than as Shatner's wife? As for the comparison with Luo Yixiu, there has been considerable academic discussion of Mao's first marriage, and on the effects it had on his political thinking. I cannot recall seeing the same regarding Rand and Shatner... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There isn't "a wealth of published sources about her life" — there are sources about Shatner's life which mention Rand in passing, but that doesn't get a person over WP:GNG. And it's in no way comparable to Luo Yixiu being notable primarily for having been married to Mao Zedong — Mao was a national head of state, and his wives are accordingly (a) well-documented in their own right, and (b) of enduring historical and encyclopedic interest. The wife of an actor, however, does not inherit notability just for having been married to an actor. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are much more than passing references to Rand in the sources. For example, Shatner's autobiography discusses Rand extensively . That an article should be improved is not a reason for deletion. Neelix (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That an article fails to demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines are perfectly valid grounds for deletion - and it is well-established Wikipedia policy that being someone's spouse does not in itself confer notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Article about a person whose only claimed notability is as the former wife of a more notable person, and whose sourcing is not substantive coverage of her, but merely inconsequential acknowledgements of her existence in coverage where said spouse, not Rand herself, is the subject. That doesn't get her past WP:GNG in her own right, and nothing in this article as written gets her over any subject-specific inclusion rules. And as I noted above, the notion that she's in any way equivalent to a national First Lady doesn't even begin to wash — actors are not national heads of state. So it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

' I don't see anything to support Neelix's assertion that there is a "wealth of published sources about her life." Shatner's autobiography does not count toward significant coverage as it is not "independent of the subject" as required of WP:GNG. Even if it did count, it's not enough on its own. As such the subject fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if Rand fails GNG, which I am not convinced she does, surely a merger with the William Shatner article would be preferable to deletion. The information currently located in this article is encyclopedic and properly sourced, and "Gloria Rand" is a likely search term. Neelix (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that's reasonable. I'm changing my preference to merge into William Shatner. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, appears to be a clear case where NOTINHERITED applies. She's an actress - what has she acted in?   PK  T (alk)  14:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * PKT, do you feel that deletion is more beneficial to the project than a merger with the William Shatner article? As I argue above, the information in this article is encyclopedic and properly sourced, and "Gloria Rand" is a likely search term. Neelix (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the way that she is currently mentioned in William Shatner's article is probably sufficient. There's not much to merge.   PK  T (alk)  19:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't the title "Gloria Rand" redirect there? Neelix (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete She is mentioned in many sources but only in connection with William Shatner. The article itself is more about Shatner than her. I am One of Many (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the point of not being able to use "Gloria Rand" as a search term for the relevant part of the William Shatner article? Neelix (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless she become notable in the future, it is reasonable to redirect to William Shatner. As far as merging, it looks to me that the Shatner article already has everything that is in this article, which isn't much. I am One of Many (talk) 18:16, 30 October 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.