Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natacha Peyre


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Natacha Peyre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject (or someone claiming to be them) has requested that this article be deleted; in 2012121410008341. They have been advised of our deletion policy; that this request is not guaranteed to succeed; and that their request will be made public. I shall notify WP:BLPN. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - first of all we can not be sure it seems that the one requesting this is even her someone in Miss Peyres entourage. Secondly this article passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Soon we will have stars like Paris Hilton requesting that their articles be deleted, lets not set a precedent.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But I do agree with the IPs opinions at the talk page which I guess could be Natacha, that the article needs to be somewhat rewritten in another style.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says (my emboldening): "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed." Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - but re-write and improve sourcing. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Her Notability is marginal, sources weak and incidental, her encyclopedic value minimal.  I see no harm in allowing the request. Martinlc (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think there could be harm in allowing the request. In the future other "glamour models" could request deletion and get their articles deleted per this AfD no matter how notable they are. And natacha is really known in Sweden and the problem here is the article quality not her notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Marginally notable, and since she wants it deleted it falls under WP:BLPDEL. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way is a "actress, singer and glamour model" a "non-notable figure"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
 * That doesn't say "non-notable figure", it says "relatively unknown". Those two phrases cannot mean the same thing.  If they did mean the same thing, that policy section would be completely meaningless, since articles about non-notable figures should be deleted under other sections anyway and that section would add nothing new.
 * Apologies. I meant to say "In what way is an 'actress, singer and glamour model' a 'non-public figure'?" Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misreading it. That section has two reasons for deletion.  The first one is for relatively unknown figures where the subject has requested deletion and there is no consensus.  The second one is for non-public figures where nobody opposes the deletion.  She fits the first reason, not the second, and the second is the only one that requires being a non-public figure.  They are not the same thing--for one thing, "no consensus" implies that someone opposes the deletion. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The full text of that section is:
 * I was wrong about the wording, but I still don't think it means what you think it means. WP:WELLKNOWN says that public figures have many reliable published sources.  Even if the legal definition of "public figure" includes all actors however obscure, Wikipedia obviously isn't using the legal definition (since obscure actors won't have many reliable published sources).  Sufficiently obscure actors should be eligible for deletion under that clause. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WELLKNOWN discusses what to include in an article, not whether or not to have one. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While that is not about whether to have an article, it shares terminology with other policies that are about whether to have an article.
 * Specifically, it uses the term "public figure" in a way which implies that actors are not automatically public figures. So you can't claim that because Natacha is an actress, she must be a public figure.  You were claiming that above. Ken Arromdee (talk) 07:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And where did I do that? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "In what way is an 'actress, singer and glamour model' a 'non-public figure'?"  That is a claim, using a rhetorical question, that because she is an actress she must be a public figure. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you appear to be making things up. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That section is about deleting articles about people who are notable, but marginally notable. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 07:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sweden's largest newspaper gives me 186 hits for this person. That tells me that the article could easily be expanded. Nymf hideliho! 20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that Aftonbladet is yellow-press, and borderline reliable at best. That being said, I won't !vote in either direction since despite being Swedish I have never heard the name but on the other hand it's not a subject that holds enough interest for me to try to look for sources. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I guess that Natacha has left her glamour model days behind, but that doesnt mean that she can erase her past. She did not complain when she earn cash from the glamour modeling. We have to stand by our choices in life. She is/was one of if not the most known glamour model in Scandinavia for a long time.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It does seem that it is simply a case of regret. Anyone under 30 in Sweden would know who Natacha Peyre is. She is by every definition a public person. Nymf hideliho! 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Though Peyre could not in any way be described as "important" from a more serious viewpoint she is certainly well known. A couple of years ago she was all over the Swedish newspaper bills. /FredrikT (talk) 00:02, 22 December 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.