Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Lynn Grumet


 * 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. Consensus appears as DELETE per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:GNG ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Jamie Lynn Grumet

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A clear case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Valenciano (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not news? A Google search for "Jamie Lynn Grumet" returns 109,000 results. Adwords tools shows hundreds of thousands of searches about the Time cover in which she is pictured. And, not to mention, she was on the Cover of Time Magazine. She may only have 15 minutes of fame, but she is certainly noteworthy. After all, *I* went to Wikipedia to find more info about her and was shocked that the article did not exist. This is the first new article I've had the opportunity to create since the mid-aughts. -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS means "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", not "this isn't news". --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not demonstrated beyond the Time cover. 15 minutes of fame is not notability. Hey, I've been on a mass circulation magazine cover myself (my parents were the subject of a magazine article, about reproductive health issues, when I was a child, and I was featured in the cover photo), but I wouldn't think that fact, by itself, would be sufficient to justify someone creating a WP article about me. Maratrean (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is a different story, Maratrean. Mrs Grumet is actively involved in the discussion on attachment parenting, she was interviewed and her appearance on the TIME cover was noted and interpreted by various columnists and journalists working for notable media. However, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E may be relevant here, as it is still a single and isolated event. What about redirecting and merging the information to Attachment_parenting? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Attachment parenting per Vejvančický.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENT. VLARKer7 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENT(VLARKer7) and WP:NOTNEWS(Valenciano) Jun.rhee (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Weak Keep It is too soon to tell whether this will pass WP:Event. You can't fairly say "15 minutes of fame" when it's only been "15 minutes".  It's been less than a month since she appeared on the cover of Time and there are a lot of additional interviews and WP:RS to use to expand the article.  I would agree with User:Maratrean's analogy of his own appearance on a magazine cover if we were discussing an article on the kid.  But we're not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertium (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You are saying something dangerously close to "keep, because the subject may perhaps become notable some day". That is not a reason to keep. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm just arguing against the 15 minute of fame reference by User:Maratran. In fact, 15 minutes of fame can be notable and notability is not temporary WP:NTEMP.  Thanks!  Vertium (talk) 03:15, 8 June 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.