Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nats Getty


 * 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) Natg 19 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Nats Getty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Significant coverage is primarily about their spouse and numerous other sources are primarily about members of their family. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 23:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject coming out as trans and nonbinary was covered by People, Out, OK Magazine, Pink News, and ET, all of which are notable publications in their own right. The subject's engagement was covered by Life & Style. The subject's marriage was covered by New York Times. Separate coverage includes an in-depth piece solely on the subject by the Los Angeles Blade; a review of the subject and Gigi Gorgeous' relationship from Variety; and Gigi and the Getty's work at Davos in Reuters. There's tons of coverage out there, as the subject is a high profile model, socialite, and activist. --Kbabej (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I also thought I'd add sources on their streetwear line, which got coverage from Forbes, WWD, and UncoverLA. --Kbabej (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only two of the sources you mention are presently in Getty's article here (the Life & Style and NYT ones). I'm not sure if all of the sources you added above prove independent notability: the Out and ET Online sources felt it necessary to specify who Getty was in relation to Lazzarato in the title, (I can't see the OK Magazine one as their website is not available in my country,) the Variety article is about both Getty and Lazzarato, and the Reuters article is about Lazzarato and "the Gettys". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BEFORE, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." To answer your point of "independent notability", nowhere in WP:RS does it state sources must solely be about a subject; the coverage can include talking about multiple subjects. --Kbabej (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply the sources you added should be disregarded because they weren't already in the article. I just meant to point out that they are not already there, and thus it would be beneficial to add them. Re. independent notability, WP:INVALIDBIO says "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)", and WP:NRV says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe the coverage shows the subject is notable on their own without relying on inherited notability. —Kbabej (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I found what I was looking for! Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." --Kbabej (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like that is contradicted by WP:NRV which specifies significant independent coverage. I was hoping for more input from others regarding this but, unfortunately, no one else has joined this discussion. I've left notices on talk pages of several users who have edited Getty's article recently. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also left notices at the talk pages for the WikiProjects listed on the talk page for Getty's article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding of "independent" is that it is independent of the subject, not independent as in having only to do with the subject. --Kbabej (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG from significant coverage in the sources provided by . Even though much of the coverage is focused on their spouse and family, there is still enough significant coverage that is just about the subject of this WP article.As Kbabej noted above, the "independent" in reliable sources that are independent of the subject means that the source of information is not affiliated with the subject(s), not that the subject is the sole focus of the coverage. The GNG "independent" in independent, reliable sources is not the same as the WP:NOTINHERITED "independent" in independently notable. — MarkH21talk 03:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes GNG, but it could use some more clean up as the article currently doesn't highlight many achievements in detail. Jooojay (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kbabej. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is clearly notable per stated above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (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.