Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Lapin


 * 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. Note that three established users have supported the retention of this article , while no users apart from the nominator have commented in favor of deletion. John254 00:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nicole Lapin

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

Nicole Lapin is an anchor on CNN's internet video channel and who is not notable per WP:BIO. The sources for the article consist almost entirely of CNN pages, press releases, and blogs. I could find almost no reliable source coverage, with the most significant coverage being a small wired piece. She has not received any major journalism awards. The article mentions that she is one the youngest anchors in CNN history, which is somewhat misleading as most of the anchors are on the much higher profile CNN television networks. BlueAzure (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Define a reliable source. CNN pages are the direct source of information and includes the most accurate information on Nicole Lapin. Nicole being the youngest anchor is a fact. To disprove this please provide a source where there may be another anchor younger than Ms. Lapin. Nicole also graduated as valedictorian with honors in political science Reference. This wiki is entirely accurate. --Rankrover (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — Rankrover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .


 * Keep Passes the notability bar for me - the Wired piece, being an anchor for CNN even if it's for the online stuff ... tons of google hits and fan coverage too. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: An IP address has now twice added material to the article that was not in the source, and inserted a citation for an article in middle of quote from a different article. This appears to be attempt list every article the subject has been mentioned in, her imdb publicity listing list these in a simpler to read form. BlueAzure (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I was able to find another one of the articles that were cited, the article does not mention what it is being used to cite. It is likely that more of the sources do not mention what they are citing. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rockstar037 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Rockstar037 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:BlueAzure: there are obviously new people experimenting with editing and contributing to Wikipedia everyday. As a new user myself, I find Wikipedia very confusing and not very user friendly. I'm sure this is why most of the editing, contributing and in your case, policing is done by the pros. I understand you're just doing your job sniffing out false material, but I can assure you the information on Nicole Lapin's Wiki-page is accurate and the photos are not infringing on any copywrite. I have no idea how to prove this, but if you walk me through the verification process, I'd be more than happy to facilitate in resolving the issue AND it will give me a chance to learn more about the inner working of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar037 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)  — Rockstar037 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That editor was not a new user, as their first edit was to add a proper cite web ref one hour after the article was taken to AfD. It is pretty likely that they are a sockpuppet of the article's long time sockpuppeter, whose last ten accounts were blocked. It is also likely that you are a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of that person, as your first edit was to this AfD and you are quite familiar with the situation. Information on wikipedia is verified with reliable sources. Part of the reason I nominated this for deletion is that when I tried to clean up the article I couldn't find reliable source material to cite almost any of the information in the article . Currently, even some of the unreliable sources don't mention what their supposed to be citing. This isn't the place to discuss the images, if you have a good explanation why one person was claiming to be two photographers post a message at the PUI page, otherwise post a message at the media copyright questions page or on my talk page. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment:I am new to Wiki myself. But I see an abuse of deletion on this particular case. And is seems to be the same individual BlueAzure that is doing it. Maybe you should contact Nicole Lapin yourself and verify the facts of the case before unfairly deleting the contents of this Wiki. --Rankrover (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — Rankrover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, this person appears notable based on the references in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason whatsoever to delete this wiki page. Questioning the reliability of the contents is ridiculous - she works for CNN. Ms. Lapin is far more known than other people with wiki pages, such as small time actors and even bloggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.221.245 (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)  — 81.154.221.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In terms of notable awards, she has won and been a finalist for multiple Hearst Foundation awards. More information on the Hearst awards is available at http://www.hearstfdn.org/hearst_journalism/index.php.
 * Keep,notable references exist, including Wired, Lucky, Fitness, Men's Health..., but, more recently, try page 36 of this month's Maxim (which also notes that she is CNN's youngest anchor). She also does anchor CNN Headline News on occassion, see http://www.nicolelapin.net/nicole-lapin-on-headline-news-this-past-week/

Furthermore, Nicole has PRESENTED notable awards--namely the LA Press Club's 2007 awards. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=37772373&postID=2317977087332174425 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)  — Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, Many notable references exist. Nicole Lapin works for CNN, and is CNN's youngest anchor. Notable references include Maxim, Six Degrees, Wired, Men's Health, Lucky, Fitness. She is the Spokeswoman for Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation, and Dosomething.org. Notable reference exist from dosomething.org, Stellar Foundation, Sworovski Stars on Ice. There are no copyright violations. There is absolutely no reason to delete this Wiki page. Everything is verifiable, and deletion of this page would be abuse of deletion. Cynscreations (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) — Cynscreations (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There has been some reliable source coverage, but it has all been trivial. For example, the maxim article consist of a small photo and a sentence. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion--please let me know if this isn't where it belongs)--Let me try and understand the question of notable references--if this was any other entry, CNN would be considered a more than notable reference, right? Has anything been found that clearly contradicts anything in CNN's Nicole Lapin bio that undermines the presumption that CNN vets its own material? If the concern is tone (I don't have a problem with what's on there, but perhaps others do?), that would seem to be a matter of editting rather than deletion. Bullcat99 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(personal discussion--pls delete if this is not the appropriate space) Thank you BlueAzure for pointing out that I do not have any contributions outside of this article. I understand the Wiki community's concern to make sure that editors are not single purpose. I came to this page because I was curious about ms. lapin, and was surprised to see that she was up for deletion as non-notable. In the future, I look forward to adding/editting articles where I can, but don't feel that my lack of experience should automatically create a presumption of sock puppetry, as you seem to accuse others on this page. (yes, I did read around a bit before starting an account). Feel free to run a checkuser on me. I appreciate your vigilance in making sure that the article is as well sourced as it can be, but believe you are conflating user-based issues with article-appropriateness issues. If your problem is with particular editors and sources, deal directly with the content--it does not make ms. lapin less noteworthy. Does the fact that vandals often try to attack other pages, i.e., George Bush, suddenly make him less notable? Would CNN articles and information be appropriate sources for him?Bullcat99 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A CNN article about George Bush would be reliable source, but a CNN employee's bio page would not. As I said when I nominated the article for deletion, I do not believe that there is enough reliable source material to indicate that Nicole Lapin is notable. Nominating the article for deletion is the way that this is handled. I don't know why a vandal would add citations for real articles. It seems like something someone who was trying to keep the article would do, in an attempt to show all the reliable source coverage she had received. BlueAzure (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * BlueAzure, thanks for the response. What basis do you have for suggesting that a CNN press release or other CNN-produced/focused documentation is less accurate or rigorous than a CNN news article?  Under your standards, an official government biography posted on a government site would not be considered reliable.  (as an aside, if you are going to eliminate CNN bios, you have a lot more wiki entries to delete)
 * As to the reliable sources, we can agree to disagree--I feel that the coverage in Wired, Men's Health, Lucky, Fitness, and Maxim, taken together, are substantial enough to qualify for notability, both in quantity and quality.
 * Further, addressing the other standards for notability, there has been no refutation of Ms. Lapin's Hearst awards, and I would give weight to the fact that she presented significant awards for the Southern California journalism community.
 * Bullcat99 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reliable sources is a wikipedia guideline, not my standard. The guideline reads in part "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources ". Neither a press release or a official government biography is third-party source. No reliable source has been provided in regards to the Hearst Award or presenting the LA Press Club's 2007 awards. BlueAzure (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

--Rankrover (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Pardon my ignorance here, but isnt Wiki supposed to be the biggest open edited encyclopedia? In my opinion, you would be un-building an encyclopedia if you delete accurate information. BlueAzure does not contest that any of the information about Nicole Lapin is true. Only that he does not see a reliable source to make the content notable. In my opinion, that is just his opinion. I say keep Nicole Lapin's page and get on with life. Seriously. — Rankrover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So accurate information can and is deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Matthew Brown (Morven). A CNN anchor and has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, the core criterion of WP:BIO.--Oakshade (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The core of WP:BIO is not simply "subject of secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject," but significant coverage. As the standard says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." BlueAzure (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Trivial" as defined by WP:BIO are "a directory entry or "passing mention". The Wired Magazine article alone goes way beyond the scope of either. --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 15 March 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.