Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renee Gartner


 * 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   no consensus. The central problem is that several editors disagree on the criteria itself, typically seen as 2 or more articles from high quality sources where the coverage is significant, meaning more than a paragraph or two, and the person is the central theme of the article. Even being specific in that interpretation, one could argue (in good faith) as to what that means, and that is exactly what is happening. As such, I don't see a consensus. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  21:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Renee Gartner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As an aspiring amateur boxer she fails WP:NBOX. Being a media director for a rugby team does not grant notability nor does being the daughter of a rugby player (WP:NOTINHERITED). Also lacks the coverage to show she's notable for being a panelist on a sports talk show. Mdtemp (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's true that none of those things grant notability. What grants notability is non-trivial coverage in at least two reliable sources.  Source 1, Source 2.  I see they're already listed in the article so there's nothing more to do here.  Keep — S Marshall  T/C 17:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Its a shame that, except for the categories, the article doesn't even mention boxing. WP:GNG says significant coverage, does not give a number.  Considering the pieces were primarily human interest and she has no notability as per the original nominator I don't think she meets WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit my comments, PRehse.— S Marshall T/C 19:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just put your Keep vote where it could be seen as per normal formatting. What's the problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It'll be seen at the end as well as the beginning. The closer will see it because they'll read the whole debate thoroughly.  I chose to put the reasoning before the conclusion, because it's really the reasoning that matters.— S Marshall  T/C 20:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect to Russel_Gartner Articles mentioned by those advocating the article be kept refer to her amateur boxing "career" of 2 fights. Certainly doesn't meet WP:NBOX.  Seems to have drawn interest because her dad was a famous rugby player, but notability is not inherited.  Doesn't merit her own article but what about a redirect to her father's article?  That article needs more sources, but at least a case can be made he's notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think if we started creating redirects for close relatives to all biographies we'ld have an explosion.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, because earlier article was incorrect in emphasis (and properly deserved being AfD-ed); she is not chiefly a boxer, nor a media coordinator, but essentially she's an Australian celebrity, TV presenter, model, etc who gets lots of write-ups down under, and plenty of attention. She's not notable for being the daughhter of a famous rugby player, or dating another celebrity, but these things add to her notability. Numerous in-depth independent WP:RS suggest she meets the GNG. Further, she's young, and the publicity will continue in all likelihood.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * She's young with more to follow is not really a good argument but the re-write and additional references are. I shifted my vote back to plain comment.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The article and sources have been improved since the original nomination, but I still don't think she meets WP:GNG. Mentions are generally passing, but they all include something like "daughter of rugby great Russel Gartner".  It seems her notability chiefly rests on who her father is, but there's enough mentions of her that I'd advocate for a redirect instead of outright deletion--although I still don't think there's enough there for her to merit her own article.  She fails the notability criteria for models and entertainers (WP:ENT), as well as those for boxers (WP:NBOX) since 2 amateur wins is obviously insufficient. Her own bio at the online sports talk show where she's one of a number of panelists (besides the cohosts) fails to support notability.  Arguing that she's young and will get more publicity is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 17:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but I think she meets the GNG, in having multiple independent in-depth sources, such as this entire article and seven paragraphs featured prominently about her and this full article about her boxing, plus this article is mostly about her. It is a rather gutsy stunt for a celebrity, to go into the ring to box for charity, particularly when celebrities are all about being beautiful, and boxing could put beauty in peril. This article puts her romance with Wallaby Quade front and center. So my problem is trying to understand your phrase 'mentions are generally passing', when it seems that in at least four sources, perhaps five, in substantial Australian media, she is the subject of the article or prominently featured within it, not just the daughter of a former rugby star. Last, if she meets GNG, she doesn't have to meet WP:ENT or WP:NBOX, with the specific guideline being If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say we have a different view of what makes significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Let's look at the sources you mentioned--the first is a fashion blog where she was asked a few questions at an event sponsored by the team where she's media coordinator, the second is a sports gossip column which deems her worthy of coverage because of her father (and that she had a second amateur boxing bout), the third announces her first fight as an amateur, and the final one is the epitome of a passing mention (it's about her new boy friend and another mention of her father).  Announcements of upcoming fights and merely stating sports results are generally considered routine coverage and fail to meet GNG requirements. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That fashion piece was seen by hundreds of thousands of Australians, men and women, maybe even millions, has influenced countless purchase decisions, trends in apparel, what women buy or think as being sexy. It may seem uninteresting to us guys but can be highly important to women who shop for clothes, that is, almost all women. About her choice of boxing to raise money for a charity: it can improve the visibility of the charity tremendously, leading to further donations and exposure; in addition, an-on-air media personality, boxing, expands the sense of what women can do and what TV people can do as well. In one sense, it is a stunt, but in another, it expands the idea of what women are capable of in the sporting world. As far as I know, it is the first instance of a TV celebrity becoming an amateur boxer to raise $$. About being born into a rugby family was helpful in getting her career started (aren't parents helpful to all of us, getting started in the world?) but clearly she is making a name for herself, she is not only daughter of the rugby player. Last, see 's claim below; notable is notable; it is not up to individuals to selectively determine what subjects we like and which we don't; I will agree that much of the pop culture world is fluff, but it is highly influential fluff at that, like it or not, but deleting every pop culture topic would violate Wikipedia's rules which the community has worked hard, through much consensus, to develop over time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see much unsupported hyperbole in this comment. "Millions" of people seeing this article would mean every man, woman, and child in the region read it and the claim that a few offhand comments influenced "countless purchase decisions" needs supporting evidence.  Your claim that she's the first celebrity to box for charity also seems unlikely. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This photo of Renee Gartner modelling evening apparel was in Perth Now, the online version of The Sunday Times, with circulation numbers ranging from 257,000 to 425,000 depending on how long the story ran. This influences purchases and fashion sensibility; it says to women readers, wanting to dress up, that this is one way to do it. It is what is in style. Maybe us Wikipedians (mostly older guys) don't care that much about women's fashion, but it is an important subject for many people. About the first woman celebrity to box: that's offhand knowledge, from memory, just that I can't think of any on-air female personality that has done that; it was new to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In recent years it's somehow become acceptable to look at non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and claim that the sources somehow don't "count" towards notability. Editors have started to use "notable" to mean "a worthy subject about which we have decided to permit you to write an article", and we need to kill that off.  Let's be clear here: notability isn't an encyclopaedic concept.  You can bet that the editors of Britannica aren't sitting around obsessing about notability!  It's purely a product of Wikipedian culture and it exists only because of our open editing environment.  The meaning of "notability" is simple and simplistic and it's quite clear from the GNG: non-trivial coverage in more than one reliable source.  That's it.  The reason why it's so simplistic is to provide us with an objective test which was meant to cut through these endless, circular notability debates.  This lady passes it, and with all due respect for the ingenious arguments offered by other debate participants, the alternative view that the sources somehow don't "count" is quite untenable.— S Marshall  T/C 11:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is, at best, disingenuous. Do you really believe that Britannica editors don't consider the notability of the subjects they choose for inclusion?  I already stated that others views of what constitutes significant independent coverage in reliable sources may differ from mine, but we're all entitled to our opinion.  I still prefer a merge/redirect to her father's article, but this may well be a case of someone "being famous for being famous".  I'm old school and believe that notability requires being notable for something (good or bad), but that can be considered a personal bias of mine. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think my position is an "argument". It's a fairly uncontroversial statement of what notability meant when it was devised.  In origin, notability's not an encyclopaedic concept, it's a tool for detecting and eliminating marketing spam.  I don't believe the editors of any paper encyclopaedia including Britannica ever think about notability (but then they wouldn't have articles on Australian boxers' daughters very often either, of course).  I think the idea that notability requires being notable for something is tautological; but I suspect you mean notable for an achievement of some kind, don't you?  If so, that's a very new school idea that only surfaced in the last three years or so.— S Marshall  T/C 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with and wanted to add what I consider to be one of the reasons behind the notability rule. If notability depended upon what particular Wikipedians considered to be "an achievement", there would be much debate about what these supposed achievements were; if that happened, then we would all become quasi-editors of Wikipedia constantly embroiled in brouhaha discussions about whether this celebrity or that was notable. But instead, by keeping the notability rule simple, clean as ice, it lessens bickering among Wikipedians, and lets real editors, who work for magazines, TV shows, publishing houses, and so forth, pick and choose what they think is important. The system works. Real editors think Renee Gartner is ink-worthy, pixel-worthy, a person of note.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. Marshall, I do mean notable as in having achieved something. This is not a new idea, except perhaps on WP.  This has been the normal way of looking at things for generations.  User tomwsulcer, it's actually the criteria for the various projects that are usually clear, not the more nebulous "significant coverage" criteria of the GNG.  Specific criteria like competing for a world title or competing at the Olympics are far less open to interpretation.  I would note that she meets none of these, hence our discussion about the significance of certain coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The trouble with relying on someone's achievements is that we have, and ought to have, articles on people whose achievements amount to not being very good at ski-jumping, getting married to the right person or being born. I'm afraid the idea that someone needs worthy achievements does not, in my view, withstand comparison with Wikipedia's real needs and practices. In my work in our deletion review pages, I've come to dislike specific notability guidelines for two reasons.  First because any small group of editors can come up with a SNG and some of them are bizarre or wildly inconsistent, and secondly because categorising people according to their job needs so many exceptions.  A certain fashion designer fails WP:CREATIVE... Finally, I don't think there's any ambiguity or openness to interpretation in the GNG.  Either there's non-trivial coverage or there isn't; either there are two sources or there aren't; either the sources are reliable or they aren't.  These debates would be very simple if we could just take the GNG at face value.— S Marshall  T/C 07:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I completely agree with your perceptive comments about how "In recent years it's somehow become acceptable to look at non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources and claim that the sources somehow don't 'count' towards notability." In my view, if a topic passes Notability, then the subject-specific notability guidelines do not need to be considered because the subject is already notable. Cunard (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)



Keep per the significant coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources. provided two sources in his "keep" comment: These two sources are sufficient to establish notability. There are also numerous articles about Renee Gartner in the Gold Coast Bulletin: The subject passes Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:GNG, article just needs to expanded. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks in-depth coverage by reliable independent sources. Lots of passing mentions just long enough to justify the inclusion of an eye-candy picture but no real substance. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica1000 06:24, 23 July 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.