Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberty Phoenix (2nd nomination)


 * 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. No major notability established. Minor roles generally do not assert notability, especially for two distant and minor spells. The reliable citations point to her biographical background, but of nothing else. P.S. Stating that you are keeping solely for inclusionist principles is a guarantee that the vote is discounted. Please use valid rationales when commenting. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberty Phoenix
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The majority of the article is about her family (copied from the Joaquin Phoenix page) and not actually about Liberty herself. The remaining content does not establish any notability (two minor roles, one an unnamed role, in a single episode of a TV show. Delete

P.S. The version that was deleted back in 2005 when AFD was still VFD is nothing like this so G4 doesn't apply. Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Merge  Merge  - Or delete. Non-notable except for being the sister of a crazy guy. Proxy User (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. THF (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I'd have to chosen to merge myself, but there is no obvious target since she has several brothers, all of whom would make good merge targets (not to mention her parents). - Mgm|(talk) 20:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - Well, River is dead, so the nutty one comes to mind. But if there isn't a strong urge to merge, delete... I don't feel strongly to keep it, her history such that it is seems to indecate she's not planning on spending too much time in the public eye. I probably shouldn't have piped up on this at all...Proxy User (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable low profile individual, fails WP:ENTERTAINER.  Not a good redirect candidate, as the subject will likely never merit more than a one-sentence mention in any of the articles about her family members.  Baileypalblue (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am, and will always be, an inclusionist. I do not understand the deletionist perspective. --Thorwald (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you may believe, I actually am an inclusionist too and I am particularly focussed on filling up WP's coverage on young people and children which others often don't find significant enough to write about, which is what brought this article to my attention. If I believed it was in any way salvageable, I definitely wouldn't have nominated it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Liberty Phoenix is a legit search for a prospective researcher. Even if she is only a one sentence article, that is enough. She may be a lower-end-notability (not a no-notability) celebrity. Wikipedia is not paper, so what is the rush to exclude a border-line notable article. Someone created this article, so Liberty is notable to someone. Others have edited the article, so she is obviously notable to more. Many have searched for her on Wikipedia. Why? Because she is notable to them. I am not an inclusionist nor a deletist, but why merge and redirect when a wikilink from River's page will address all of the above concerns. This article, as is and where is, meets the present and future needs of wiki-users. Delete it and the information is lost. How does that improve Wikipedia? Esasus (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea that someone or something is notable when one or more people create or look for the article is inherently flawed. There've been plenty of groups of people who've been trying to use Wikipedia to advertise their books, films and other creations. By that reasoning we should throw out the rules on spam too because a couple of people want the article to exist. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I respect the inclusionist perspective, even if I don't always follow it myself, so I'll leave it to others to counter that position. However, this is a BLP article on a marginally notable/non-notable person who's basically a private figure, barring some child acting roles several decades ago.  That being the case we have a positive duty to respect her privacy and avoid the libel risk to the subject that comes from maintaining a marginal Wikipedia article.  BLP articles face stricter scrutiny per foundation policy, and it's right that they do so.  Baileypalblue (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Notability is not temporary" Esasus (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and if I thought those minor acting roles established notability, I would have !voted differently (they fail WP:ENTERTAINER). The subject of my second comment is not notability but the public/private status of the subject, and that does expire.  Articles on non-public figures face higher standards than articles on public figures.  Baileypalblue (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For "Notability is not temporary" to count, someone has to be notable to begin with. "1st brownie" is not a significant role and there is no evidence the other role is either. - Mgm|(talk) 22:32, 8 March 2009 (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.