Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luisa Zissman


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Luisa Zissman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have doubts about the notability of the subject. First content contribution from. This "retail entrepreneur" who achieved some modicum of notoriety on Big Brother. Well, her biography contains impressive biographical facts (sic) like "Zissman broke down after thinking she bungled a pitch in the final, and was then fired by Lord Sugar" and "She entered the house on Day 1 handcuffed to American boxer Evander Holyfield". But I ask: where's the biographical material?? All these "facts" are cited to wonderfully reliable sources" such as Daily Mail and Daily Mirror. Other cites are trivial mentions or write-ups of the program. Let there be no confusion between television and biography – Reality television is 80 percent television and 20 percent reality. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 13:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable for two events and thus passes WP:1EVENT.-- Laun  chba  ller  13:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  15:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Launchballer - notable for 2 events, and has received a large amount of national coverage for both. Boleyn (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * She may well have participated in two "reality programmes", the media coverage is directly show-related and often trivial. Anyhow, it seems to violate WP:NOT. Most of the article is directly show-related, and there is precious little biographic material there. If we have some more of the latter that can be meaningfully sourced, then I am prepared to buy. Can someone clean it up? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 07:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep has sufficient "modicum of notoriety" to be notable--Zymurgy (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - if she'd only ever appeared on The Apprentice, this might be arguable, but by appearing on Celebrity Big Brother she's achieved a sufficient level of notability for us to have an article on her. Robofish (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep - more than Z-list, though only just, her claim to notoriety is largely for appearing in two TV shows and not winning either of them (yet). A large chunk of media coverage was removed from the article by NorthBySouthBaranof which, being unrelated to her reality TV work, makes a case for meeting WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there any guidelines that mention people who have been contestants on two reality shows? We've deleted articles of people who have only competed in one reality show, but are there any other articles of people who have competed in two, and do not have any other notability? She's not notable as a businesswoman, so it is her Apprentice and CBB participation that she is known for. Jim Michael (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's certainly a widespread acceptance that reality TV contestants should be redirected to the article about the TV programme, unless they win or do something remarkable. Being prominently involved with two makes the situation less clear. I made my case above, though I don't think the other 'Keep' arguments above are strong. Sionk (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep entirely per Launchballer. - →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  03:56, 2 February 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.