Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal life of Jennifer Lopez


 * 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. Delete as WP:BLP vio, and WP:CFORK ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life of Jennifer Lopez

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This page, an unnecessary WP:CFORK from Jennifer Lopez, is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of tabloid tittle-tattle about Ms. Lopez's personal life. Wikipedia is not an online version of OK Magazine (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) and these relationships aren't notable simply because JLo was involved in them (WP:NOTINHERITED). SplashScreen (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The main Jennifer Lopez article is probably too long, and this seems to have been created to help solve that problem, as well as to avoid having separate articles on all her boyfriends/husbands/partners. I'm not sure if this is the best way to partition it into separate articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've skimmed through the "Life and career" section of Jennifer Lopez and most, if not all, of the relevant information on her personal life is already included there. SplashScreen (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - What part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE does the nominator referst to - the in-universe fiction, the lyrics of songs or the listing of statistics? That policy and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER are bad policies to cite here, since none of them apply to delete this article - on the contrary, NOTNEWSPAPER is against single-time events (which this article is not) but instead it allows for "the enduring notability of persons and events" (which this article covers). This article looks like a biography, not a diary. Per WP:ARTIST(4c), J.Lo "has won significant critical attention" not only for her work but for her personal life. Together with ample coverage per WP:GNG the topics merits an article of its own if it has enough material, as it happens. I think moving most personal content from Jennifer Lopez and placing it here, thus separating personal and artistic life, and leaving only a summary is a very good option, better than deleting everything. Diego (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE I'm evoking is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The three examples you state are just that; examples. Secondly, you're mistaken; nobody is disputing that JLo isn't notable, bu her personal life is not individually notable. The "significant critical attention" raised in WP:ARTIST relates to awards and the like, not her giving interview about who she is dating. And we shouldn't have seperate articles on singers' careers and personal lives; JLo's personal life is evident because of her career, not in spite of it. There's a symbiosis there and that is why this article is irrelevant. Your arguments seem to break WP:VALINFO, WP:BHTT and WP:LOSE. SplashScreen (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, valid split-off article with sufficient size to stand alone. At best, this would be merged back to Jennifer Lopez as a necessary part of her biography, but I see nothing significant that can be trimmed from this to reduce its size. See Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of Paul McCartney, closed as keep, a group nomination that included similar articles for McCartney, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and Frank Sinatra. As the closing admin there explained, the main issue is whether there is enough reliably sourced information to justify splitting from the main biographical article, particularly where so many of the relationships are with other notable people (in Lopez's case, Ben Affleck, Sean Combs, Marc Anthony) and are undeniably high-profile. The nom's dismissive characterization of this as "tabloid tittle-tattle" suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and is inaccurate in any event where the sources are not tabloid gossip rags but instead mainstream magazines and news outlets. This isn't merely transitory news either, because any biography of Lopez would include this info even though many of these relationships are now years old. There seem to be many WP editors who feel that info on anything other than accomplishments is not encyclopedic, as if biographies should be purged of anything personal. But the focus on this kind of personal information is not specific to entertainers or celebrities, nor limited to tabloid gossip; see Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Ann Rutledge (believed to be Lincoln's first love, notable for no other reason), Personal relationships of Alexander the Great, Personal relationships of James VI and I... If someone is notable, we want a full and rich portrait of them as human beings, not just their resumés. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could go on about how the concept of the "Beatles wives", and the vast amount of research and cultural comment that surrounds them, makes McCartney's relationships independently notable. There is a distinct difference between this and the amount of boyfriends that JLo has had. The same can be said about the relationships of the historical figures that you mention. It's not about whether or not I like or dislike a subject (I happen to have a few JLo songs on my iPod, as it happens) and it's not about whether a subject has had a documented love life, it's about whether the subjects's love life is independently notable for a seperate article. Jennifer Lopez fails this test. All notable details surrounding her dating history and other personal issues are currently documented in the main article, so this isn't even a question of a merge. This is just an unnecessary content fork. If we need to make the Jennifer Lopez article smaller, I suggest we look at the Legacy section as this in itself seems broad enough to sustain its own article. A "full and rich" portrait of people's lives? WP:BIO says we should create articles on people who are, or whose lives are, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". JLo's personal life is none of these on its own, whereas the opposite can be said of McCartney et al. In short, you need to assume good faith, remember that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and note that Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING. Whilst you've presented a fairly interesting rant, it doesn't seem to contain a strong enough argument to keep this article other than "you just don't like her", "the JLo page is too long" or "we have one for Him out of The Beatles". SplashScreen (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even each of non-notable relationships is suitable for this article, as this could be a detailed notable life about these non-notable subjects. Also, List of The Price Is Right pricing games consists of non-notable subjects that benefit themselves as parts of a list. Whether each relationship is notable is one thing, but nominating a prosed list of Jennifer's relationship for deletion for lacking "significance" is just an attempt to suppress history. Whether she's a "ho", her relationships are temporarily notable, or any other is insignificant to people is irrelevant. Sure, it might fail other guidelines, but this topic (I mean, a collaboration about Jennifer's non-notable relationship) passes WP:GNG and WP:notability. It has significant coverage, reliable sources, and widespread criteria to pass GNG. --George Ho (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that articles such as List of The Price Is Right pricing games are a consequence of WP:PLOTSUM as their details are relevant in establishing a wider subject of a source picture. The opposite applies here, as false reports about JLo "struggling" with pregnancy has absolutely no impact on what she is primarily notable for. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge back into the main article and split off something else. Seriously, who thought that products and endorsements were more important than her personal life? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why merging? Which part are too insignificant as part of this article? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I believe this is too significant to shunt aside (at least to the press and her fans) and works better within the context in the main article. I'd rather split off less important stuff like her commercial interests and philanthropy and maybe her legacy. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – I think postdlf here basically covered why this page should be kept. I don't quite understand why I wasn't notified that this was nominated for deletion, seeing as how I created the article. I think it should also be noted that this is the second article I created that this user has specifically nominated for deletion in the past two weeks alone. Also, as a main contributor to Jennifer Lopez-related articles, this article and her main article are currently undergoing huge construction; have been for a while. The article was in such bad shape previously. Not all information present in this article is also present in her main article. There's many valid articles like this on Wikipedia; with this being no different. Besides the fact that J.Lo is known for her amount of high profile relationships, the article also contains information about her children, legal issues and the ever so controversial Scientology. — Statυs  (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a bit of a non-argument. "There's many valid articles like this on Wikipedia" - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And maybe JLo is known for having lots of boyfriends, but this is not why she is notable. And "the ever so controversial Scientology"? That's a WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:RNPOV, violation right there. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, salt, scorch the earth, drive a stake through the ashes, pave it over, and put a parking lot on top of it. An appalling violation of BLP principles. Wikipedia is not a directory of celebrity hooks or a repository for the tabloidery that passes for celebrity journalism. Any editor who believes that content like "Combs and Lopez were rumored to be back together following her split from Cris Judd, which was untrue" or "It was also rumored that Lopez and Anthony became Scientologists during that period with the help of Angelo Pagan, the husband of The King of Queens actress and Scientologist Leah Remini" or "Lopez's relationship with actor Ben Affleck ended from overexposure" (which turns out to have no reliable sources, despite a pile of gossipy references that turn out to say no such thing) belong in this encyclopedia should be topic banned from editing BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT; maybe the whole religion section should go as well as other portions, I have no strong opinion either way. But that's not the whole article, and we don't delete entire articles because of such specific content issues that are dealt with through normal editing and discussion. Her relationships with Affleck, Combs, and Anthony at a minimum are without dispute verifiable and were high profile; she has interviewed about all of them multiple times, they have been commented on extensively over a period of at least a decade by reliable sources that are not tabloids, and they have even affected the content her work (see music video for "Jenny from the Block"). Whether or not we like celebrity journalism, it exists and is an indelible part of modern mass media and is not merely tabloid rumor mongering, such that her personal life itself does easily satisfy WP:GNG apart from her career as a topic. And the media coverage on her itself has been the topic of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, even academic studies. See Google Books search result, producing the following examples on the first two pages alone: Icons of American Popular Culture: From P.T. Barnum to Jennifer Lopez ("Time noted her willingness to appear on talk shows even if questions about boyfriend Combs came up..."; an obvious counter to any WP:BLP concerns for her privacy about these relationships); Latina/o Stars in U.S. Eyes: the Making and Meanings of Film and TV Stardom ("...in this chapter I explore Jennifer Lopez's career and the publicity she received as a window into shifts in Latina/o opportunity and status in Hollywood, the United States, and increasingly, in global media..."); Media, Minorities, and Meaning: A Critical Introduction ("This study draws upon and extends Guzman and Valdivia's (2004) analysis of media presentation and press coverage of three Latina icons (Selma Hayek, Frida Kahlo, Jennifer Lopez)"; Black Cultural Traffic: Crossroads in Global Performance and Popular Culture ("The media coverage of one of the most public and successful hip-hop entrepreneurs, Sean Combs, demonstrates this ... including trials for criminal wrongdoing and romantic involvement with Puerto Rican superstar Jennifer Lopez"). So the article could even be further expanded with this academic metacommentary on the media commentary on her personal life. But even if it turned out that the article can be trimmed down to the point at which its verifiable and encyclopedic content is not sufficiently large that it can't be merged back into the article, fine, but that calls for an editing decision scalpel, not a deletion decision wrecking ball. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst you've made a nice argument for why this information should be included in Wikipedia, you haven't made a good argument for why this information should be included in its own article on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SIZE, as a WP:SPLIT from the main biographical article. And if it should be included in Wikipedia somewhere in any event, than per WP:ATD we don't have a deletion candidate. postdlf (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That "SIZE" guideline... led List of Codename: Kids Next Door episodes to be split terribly, and not any of us know what to do with split articles. It suffers from fancruft mostly and shoddy arrangements. I tried to help minimize use of Template:very long, but somehow sufferably long articles and badly-arranged articles get in the way, and.... I don't know. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant to the Jennifer Lopez article. This page is, in essence, about Lopez, and there is not much of a reason to have it separate from the main page. There are statements like "In January 2011 during an interview on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, Lopez said that she wants to get pregnant "a thousand more times"", and "Lopez was seen without her ring, and it was later confirmed that the 18-month romance ended on January 20, 2004, just three days after Affleck returned to Los Angeles from the Sundance Film Festival", which is suggesting violation of WP:NOT. The article as a whole is just tabloid gossip, etc. — removal of it would prove to be completely redundant to Jennifer Lopez. Till I Go Home talk  edits 04:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting Postdlf: "The media coverage on her itself has been the topic of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources, even academic studies." The media is a huge part of J.Lo's life, as it is even stated in the article that it put a negative look on her career. Hardly any of the information located in this article is actually present on Jennifer Lopez, as it was completely removed from the article when this one was created. Some of it was re-added, not by me I might add. I say you get over the fact there are a few questionable sentences (and forces) in the article and look at the entire thing. — Statυs  (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am entitled to express my opinion! You are being aggressive for no apparent reason. I have striked my delete and will change to keep if the article gets a haircut, and thus no longer violates WP:NOT. Till I Go Home talk  edits 10:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not being aggressive; I'm just stating a fact. Just because an article has some few questionable sources does not mean that it should be deleted. Also, you are free to give the article a haircut if you ever so wish to. I've trimmed it down myself a bit. — Statυs  (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lopez has so much diverse personal life that is enough for creating sorely a stand alone article. — Tomica   (talk)  09:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note It should also be noted that redirects of men who she was in a relationship that do not have an article with redirect to here. — Statυs   ≠  22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or selectively merge back to the main article. The existence of this article is pretty much incompatible with WP:BLP's principle that "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." Any aspects of her personal life that are encyclopedically important must be able to be condensed to a length that fits into her main article.  Sandstein   05:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "With regard for the subject's privacy" would imply that Jennifer Lopez hasn't admitted her relationships yet. "Written conservatively" is either vague or ambiguous and is not totally limited to "size"; nevertheless, even self-unpublished "truth" must not be included in this article under that policy. If Lopez hasn't publicized "truth" about her own love life, then some content must be removed from this article. Even if small, how would the main article itself be split up and summarized? Still, I don't think a violation of WP:BLP is a reason to delete this article --George Ho (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge back into her main article. We should not have Personal life of forks for celebrities. While some details on their personal lives are relevant, an entire article is likely to just turn into a collection of trivial minutiae and fancruft, and is an unfair imposition on their privacy to boot. This kind of stuff belongs in tabloid journalism, not WP. Quite simply, no article entitled "Personal life of X" should be permitted, for all Xs. Maratrean (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Only it has been shown extensively that this topic is not merely one of "tabloid journalism" but has been covered by mainstream media sources, and even academic books. It's also off the mark to urge deletion on the basis of concern for privacy for someone who has purposefully lived their life (and not merely their career) in the public eye. We're talking about one of the most highly publicized celebrities of the past couple decades, and even that publicity itself has been the subject of significant commentary. Your last two sentences really make your comment seem like it's just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Relist

 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Relist note: I've relisted this for a few reasons; there is clearly no consensus at the moment, BLP is relevant here, and the article has been heavily edited during the AfD. I suspect that a simple No Consensus would not be helpful to what is an important AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. We should not have "personal life of .." articles, particularly of living persons, as they are a target for vandalism that goes against the BLP policies. What needs to be said can be in the main article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That an article might be WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to policy violations is no argument for deleting it; repeat vandalism is instead grounds for protection. Particularly not when you've stated you think the content actually belongs on WP, though in the main article, which makes this actually a merge suggestion and thus not an AFD concern per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question to those who vote delete or merge How would either of those things be done? Jennifer Lopez is in chronological order of events. It would not be accurate to just, say, take each relationship and paste it somewhere within the article. Some of this is also irrelevant to her main article, but still has importance to her life, such as the bump that she found on her child's head days after birth, which inspired her to create a charity.
 * Bduke, before you leave your "vote", you should really actually read the article for yourself. I've also added a little bit of information on the influence/effect her personal life has had on her career. If you flat out don't believe in "personal life of..." articles, then I suggest you go nominate all the ones that exist for deletion and see what will happen. With, if you already didn't know already happened previously.  Statυs (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did read the article, but thanks for pointing out the other articles and their AfD discussion. I entirely agree with the nominator of that AfD discussion. These articles give overdue weight to what is largely gossip. It is certainly possible to give enough details in the primary article and in this case that is already essentially done. Some information can also be given in articles on the persons who the subject has had relationships with. Nevertheless it is clear that there is a sharp division of opinion on this matter. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ojani Noa, for example, does not have an article, since he is not notable outside of his relationship with Lopez. They have taken each other to court multiple times, including a tell-all book he wanted to write about her and a sex tape he wanted to sell. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete an article. Clearly, there is enough relevance for a separate topic. Where would the commentary go on her relationships? It's not useless bits of information. Information such as "Lopez met Cuban actor Ojani Noa at a restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida, where he was working as a waiter. The two began dating shortly afterwards, with Noa proposing to Lopez on October 28, 1996 in San Antonio, Texas with a marquis-cut diamond ring." is not present in her main article because it would make it too large. But that does not make it still relevant information. Her main article isn't even at a complete state; with only "1969–94: Childhood and early work" being written to completion. The rest of the sections still require expansion on her career, as you can most, most of it just states "in blah year Lopez starred in blah movie". This is a valid article I am in the midst of expanding while studying for my final exams to please people, which clearly isn't happening because they just don't like it.  Statυs (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like you have a touch of ownership of this article. The quote you give makes my point. The main article already has "Lopez married Cuban-born Ojani Noa, who she met while he worked as a waiter in a Miami restaurant; they were divorced by January 1998". I am not even sure that "while he worked as a waiter in a Miami restaurant" is needed there, although the date of the wedding should be there. The date of the engagement and the ring is not encyclopedic. We are not writing a biography. We are writing an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should give concise facts and point to sources where the reader can get more information. It does not have to cover everything, nor should it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so, let me get this straight: first you come in here with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and now you are accusing me of article ownership? If you couldn't already tell, users are coming in this AfD and stating what they don't like about the article and doing nothing about it. It is not my fault that nobody is trying to assist me with the article. I would like you to enlighten me on how that is showing article ownership. I'd like to see some evidence of the ways I am showing such acts. I would love for someone to help assist me with this article, but no one seems to really care. How is that information not relevant? Lopez later employed him at a restaurant she opened, and fired him not soon after. Which turned into to a lawsuit.  Statυs (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: It passes WP:GNG, without question.  The amount of ink spilled and bytes used to chronicle the personal life of Jennifer Lopez exceeds that devoted to some entire ancient civilizations.  Allow discussion to continue after AfD as to merger of content.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that this AFD is relisted, even after long talks. I stroke "keep" because, sometimes, not all subtopics benefit a stand-alone article, and because other arguments may have some merit, even if some evidence looks flimsy. I won't vote delete because... this article needs cleanup for those who oppose deletion or merger. --George Ho (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, i would just like to comment that the reason this page was created was because there is too much relevant information regarding her personal life. Status created this article so that it wouldn't get out of hand. Only the extremely important things (marriages, divorces, children, notable relationship) has been actually summed up in the article. If we went to merge this again with her main article, it would be much too long and completely stupid. I don't know if you know this, but lawsuits, background information, relationships, marriages, children, religion, etc all are very relevant, especially for JLo. Her personal life is a very big focus. I see many have complained about issues in the article (various paragraphs and sentences) yet none of you care to remove it or do anything about it? Even if the parts you don't like are removed and this information is moved back into her main article, it's just too much..... the content is deserving of its own page. Like it or not. And the subject is of extreme relevance and interest to the public; that's fact not assumption. With a little bit of work done here and there, it's totally fine. − Soap  Jar 08:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * At least this situation is different from murders of Jennifer Hudson's Chicago family, which lacks independent notability. Speaking of religion, I don't see substantial information about it in the main page and this subpage. Maybe you haven't looked at history log, have you? --George Ho (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. Unfortunately i have been non-active on wiki for a few days and i failed to see that the section is no longer there. However, from what i remember it was there and religion is extremely important... so you pick out the tiny wrong in what i have said and address that rather then all my other points? Hmm... − Soap  Jar 05:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The personal life should be an integral part of the bio. Even if all this is considered encyclopedic, it would still fit into the main article. And I consider the additional detail here   about as non-encyclopedic as one can get. The detailed gossip and quotes about her relationships is tabloid material, and the relevant principle is NOT FANSITE. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - The section of Personal life of Jennifer Lopez are 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and 4 Media influence. None of those sections align with any section in the Jennifer Lopez article. There never was is enough text in a given subtopic in in the Jennifer Lopez article to merit its own article. Doesn't meet Summary style. Editing requires making hard choices about what gets into and what stays out of an article. Allowing multiple Jennifer Lopez articles sidesteps that process. Wikipedia works on consensus, not avoiding consensus building. If you want 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and/or 4 Media influence section coverage on Jennifer Lopez, you're going to need to come to a consensus on the Jennifer Lopez article talk page to add that to the Jennifer Lopez article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So your argument is that no biography should span more than one article? Your statement that "None of those sections align with any section in the Jennifer Lopez article." is because it was split-off without summary paragraphs being retained for the overall content. Which can and should be fixed. And in any event, you and DGG above you are really calling for selective merger, not deletion, as you both think this should be trimmed and integrated back into the main article. postdlf (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any useful information in the 'Personal life of Jennifer Lopez' article that already isn't in the 'Jennifer Lopez' article. The consensus does not exist to add 1 Relationships, 2 Children, 3 Influence on career, and/or 4 Media influence sections into the Jennifer Lopez article, so it can't be "fixed". 'Personal life of Jennifer Lopez' is the cutting room floor content that gets left behind as top importance articles improve to B-class. Even if enquiring minds want to know, it benefits the encyclopedia to have editors make the tough editorial decisions on what gets in and what stays out of the article so that it can move up in class. The topic coverage only needs to be a representative survey of the relevant literature and the article need only stay focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. One group of editors external to the article forcing content into the article over the objections of another group of editors via spin-in isn't the spinoff discussed in Summary style. The groups should come together on the article talk page and make editorial decisions on consensus outcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The consensus does not exist to add..." There's no such consensus against and never has been, nor do you need a demonstrated consensus prior to adding content to an article. Regardless, this article was split off from the main article by User:Status in the first place, not as a prelude to deleting it, but because of its size; it was a split off, not a "spin in" as you seem to think. So none of your comment makes sense in light of the actual edit history here, nor in light even of many of the deletion comments here, which say this belongs back in the main article. postdlf (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this and any other "Personal life of ..." article fork. That's a terrible idea and precedent.  Biographies should include all aspects of the lives of the subjects: the personal, the professional, the artistic, the financial, etc., since these subjects are often intertwined.  Would you take Yoko Ono out of the John Lennon article?  Bill Clinton out of the Hillary Clinton article?  Joe DiMaggio out of the Marilyn Monroe article?  It's absurd.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As with any split-off article, there should be a summary paragraph on her personal life in the main bio, which can easily be fixed by adding one. Deleting this will not accomplish that, and maintaining this as a stand-alone article does not interfere with that. postdlf (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The current main article already seems to have the important parts of her personal life integrated into the chronology – I see mentions of Combs, Judd, Affleck, and Anthony, for example, as well as the "Bennifer" expression, the most expensive celebrity photo ever of the twins, and so forth. That's the best solution of all and the one I use in all the biographies that I'm the main author of.  Then there's no need for either a "Personal life" section or a "Personal life of ..." subarticle.  As for the added detail that the subarticle provides, merge it back into the main article chronology if it's really necessary, but some of it (such as the lengthy quotes, or the exact weight and time of birth of the twins) seems unnecessary to be anywhere.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Category:Personal relationships by individual already has 10 articles in it, including two that are GA (on McCartney and Jackson). I hadn't realized there were any.  So maybe this ship has already sailed ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It was already decided last year.  Statυs (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Jennifer Lopez, but after a significant trimming of that article and this article have been performed. Remember: we are a tertiary source, and should be summarizing information.  I can believe there's certainly enough media attention on her to generate more than 180k of text, but this is not summarizing, it's a timeline.  There is a lot of excess information.  There's a lot of information that can be offloaded to her albums and other media for example. --M ASEM  (t) 18:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Excess of information? Please show me what information is fluff.  Statυs (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not fluff, it's just excessive and duplicative. Trying to read through the chronological biography is getting a combination of her personal life and how her works were received, which should be on the actual album/movie pages, not this page, at least in the bio section. That's extremely awkward to make any sense of.  Her varied professional entertainer aspects seem to beg this article to break out her musical aspects to a single section, her actress parts to another, etc., and leaving just bare personal life details (and how/when they intersect with her career milestones to get a sense of timing). The bio should be less a timeline and more a capture of broad strokes of her career. --M ASEM  (t) 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and burn with fire. Wikipedia is not the tabloids. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Jennifer Lopez per WP:NOTTABLOID, WP:BLPGOSSIP. Having a separate article for this subject matter gives it undue weight. The article length concerns of the main article can be addressed by splitting out other content, e.g. Career of Jennifer Lopez, List of songs recorded by Jennifer Lopez, etc. as recently suggested by George Ho. -- Trevj (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest something like Paul McCartney's musical career (but for both acting and music career)? Artistry could also be included in there. I think basically, this article needs to stay as it is for the time being until it be decided on what to do. Then we can deal with anything else.  Statυs (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG and nom. This is also classic fancruft, not worthy of an encyclopedia, soucred mostly by People magazine and the like.  If someone will do the work, a smerger is also acceptable to me, per Masem and contra The Bushranger.  TMI, as my students would say. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as acceptable content fork. I'm not going to check the WP:SOURCES but they seem sufficient.
 * WP:UNDUE states: "All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. ...This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.
 * The WP:CONTENTFORKING guideline states: "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. ...This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
 * The WP:CONTENTFORKING section discussing WP:SPINOFF states: "Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. ...Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter. This can happen when a particular controversial incident gets a lot of attention from editors representing different points of view, expanding until every item of evidence is included and referenced. This kind of detailed examination of a single incident in a general article will usually be considered to give Undue Weight to the incident so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article. ...Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation"
 * Essentially, the notability is already accrued to Lopez, and this is a spinoff of the already-notable Jennifer Lopez article. If I wanted to learn about Lopez, I would be glad for this material to be offloaded from the main article. --<font style="font-variant:small-caps">→gab  24 dot  grab← 17:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete on principle as a content fork of the main article, which should cover this in the context of Lopez' whole life/works. Having this as a standalone perhaps risks creasing a magnet for undue emphasis leading to a failure of NPOV. As a BLP this isn't acceptable and the policy should trump the GNG in this case. Spartaz Humbug! 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is clearly not a content Fork. It does not present a new point of view. Just a plit of the article across multiple pages. OracleB (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — OracleB (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I don't think that anyone is disputing that this is a content fork. What we're here to debate is a) whether the scope of this article is worthy enough to sustain this division and b) whether the subject matter has already been sufficently surmised in the parent article. SplashScreen (talk) 18:02, 21 June 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.