Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberley Anne Scott Mathers


 * 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 Eminem. Black Kite 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kimberley Anne Scott Mathers

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

Fails WP:BIO. Everything in this article always relates to his former husband Eminem. It should almost be renamed Relationship of Eminem and Kimberly Anne Scott Do U(knome)? yes... | or no  · 19:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent achievements. Anything new here should be merged back into Eminem article. Thetrick (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we merged then we wouldn't delete per the GFDL. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to presence of reliable sources and relationship with notable person. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: According to BIO, a relationship with notable person does not constitute notability. Do U(knome)? yes... | or no  · 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a valid search term, so I don't see any reason why nothing could be merged and redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario here. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense, but did you even bother to read the content under that link? "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics" is right there too. Do U(knome)?</b> <sup style="color:red;">yes... | <sub style="color:blue;">or no <b style="color:white;"> ·</b> 00:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thing to check is the article's history, which shows many editors working on the article for three years. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So wait, the number of editors and when it was created now determines notability? Seriously????? Funny. <b style="color:green;">Do U(knome)?</b> <sup style="color:red;">yes... | <sub style="color:blue;">or no <b style="color:white;"> ·</b> 00:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It shows that a large number of contributors believe it is notable and than a handful of posts in the AfD does not reflect the real opinion of our community. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What?!?...well, you are just desperate here. <b style="color:green;">Do U(knome)?</b> <sup style="color:red;">yes... | <sub style="color:blue;">or no <b style="color:white;"> ·</b> 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A little civility please. Ford MF (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What difference does it really make if a referenced article that editors and readers obviously see value in stays? It bothers me when I see in effect electronic book burning.  As an educator and especially a historian, there is no such thing as useless knowledge, especially when, as in this case, we are talking about someone who is directly referenced in songs by a well-known artist and for whom we have reliable references even in the article.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's nothing in the article to hint at independent notability, and I don't think there ever has been. zadignose (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As I understand it, the nominator seems to be proposing a rename. let's close this and let him do it. DGG (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. No I'm not! Then why would I have put this on Afd?? I was being sarcastic...seriously, what a stupid name would Relationship of Eminem and Kimberly Anne Scott be anyways! <b style="color:green;">Do U(knome)?</b> <sup style="color:red;">yes... | <sub style="color:blue;">or no <b style="color:white;"> ·</b> 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable ex-wife, notability is not inherited. ukexpat (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * She is notable and notability is inherited. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An absolutely false statement. Click the link this time. --Thetrick (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the claim that notability is not inherited is indeed false. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: maybe in your version of reality it is false, but in Wikipedia it is not. Oh and by the way that was one editor's comment in a totally unrelated Afd discussion, the result of which was to delete. – ukexpat (talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * An article that actually lacked any overwhelming consensus to be deleted. And in my version of reality, which is the Wikipedia version of reality, NOTINHERITED is considered an "argument" to avoid in AfD discussions.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The link you provided says the exact opposite of what you are arguing here.  D C E dwards 1966  20:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The link provides "Delete UNESCO can not be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited" as an example of a bad or weak argument. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, why don't you just give up? You brought three different ridiculous arguments to sustain your cause, used an essay and some random quote from an Afd to fight an official policy, and yet you ignore what everyone else is trying to tell you. <b style="color:green;">Do U(knome)?</b> <sup style="color:red;">yes... | <sub style="color:blue;">or no <b style="color:white;"> ·</b> 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no one has presented a valid or logical argument for outright deletion here. I can understand rationales for merging or redirecting, but there is clearly no reason to outright delete in this case.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eminem.  D C E dwards 1966  17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to Eminem. Lacks independent notability. --Madchester (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Eminem, or Delete.  This is a classic case of claimed notability by association, and equally classic that there are plenty of precedents to redirect to the associated subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. MahangaTalk 07:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If we redirect, then there's no reason to delete as well. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 12:52, 12 June 2008 (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.