Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Ridge


 * 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. Sr13 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sally Ridge

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

not noteworthy enough for an encyclopediac entry to be possible Kripto 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Her best claim to fame is being married to a former athelete. Fails WP:BIO. Resolute 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mild keep Several sources to back that she's an interior designer of note in New Zealand. Article may need padding.--Ispy1981 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. At the very least has demonstratable name recognition. The fashion and interior design stuff gets a fair few articles in gnews archives--Limegreen 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would she be notable without the celebrity status of her husband?  And who outside of New Zealand has ever heard of her?  All the sources are local to NZ.  I also object to the opening statement: "the ex-cricketer" -- as if her husband is so well-known that anyone would have heard of him outside of cricket fandom.  --Nonstopdrivel 06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good call dude. Is there any proof this whole like 'New Zealand' thing exists anyway?  I trawled Gawker for like fifteen seconds during the second ad break in the Simpsons and there's zip.  Maybe it's somewhere real out there like Brooklyn? Nick mallory 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure the sarcasm is called for, but point taken. If we have room for American socialites like Paris Hilton on the wikisphere, I guess there's no reason why we don't have room for New Zealander socialites. --Nonstopdrivel 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the American Wikipedia. If she's notable in New Zealand, she's notable enough for Wikipedia even if not a single individual outside that country has heard of her. -- Charlene 08:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I think that was the point I was making Charlene...


 * Keep: Are you kidding? I would be hardpressed to find anything in WP:V stating that reliable sources don't count if they're in New Zealand.    RGTraynor  14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This article was a long-standing request at WikiProject New Zealand. Sally Ridge has been known as a television personality in New Zealand for a considerable length of time, separate from anything to do with either her ex-husband or current husband. I realise that "other shit exists" isn't a particularly good argument on AfD, but as one of the regular designers on such series as the NZ edition of Changing Rooms and Home Front. and in the media in general after that, Ridge would rate level with the likes of the UK's Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen. And I don't see anyone rushing to delete his article due to a lack of notability. It needs expansion, not deletion. I've given the article a thorough copyedit which is a start. Oh - and no, Nick, as everyone knows, Brooklyn is in NZ, not the other way round :) Grutness...wha?  06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Solid keep. Short article, but notability guidelines seem to be met pretty handily. Longstanding request for this article by an established project helps, too. Realkyhick 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least one source demonstrating notability, others should be added and could certainly be found. Nonstopdrivel's response above unhelpful. Notability does not have to be international. And yes, she would be notable without the status of her husband. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk to me)  08:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Individual is certainly notable in her own country, and easily passes WP:BIO. -- Charlene 08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * some thoughts - 1. Ms Ridge has been in the media. Checking the googlenews archive posted above, for either trying to demolish a house and/or for being married, and/or having children and/or having a job; it seems that she has high name recognition. But that is not the same thing as notability. It seems her best description is 'socialite'. 2. There is no way to know if she is a high-flyer among New Zealand interioir designers, but I would assume that if such things are unascertainable. awarding her the benefit of the doubt would be a mistake. 3. She was on TV, and this is not the same thing as notable either; none of the shows she is associated with (and I think the TV shows are the best measure of her notability) have wikipages of their own. Homefront goes to a page about a civil populace during a time of war and the 'changing rooms' page is about the British show with her name mentioned in passing, and Celebrity Treasure Island is a redlink.. 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed two of those links to point to the corrct pages... as to Changing Rooms, it makes sense to list the NZ show on the same page as the UK one gioven that there was some interchange betwen the two series. If there hadn't been, it would surely have merited its own page. Grutness...wha?  14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. She is certainly notable within New Zealand in the fields of interior design and from her TV work, never mind the notability from the issues raised from the demolition of the house. All of these add up to pass the notability requirements.--Mendors 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still object to the idea that she derives notability from a controversy surrounding a house demolition. In my hometown there are always controversies surrounding proposed demolitions of historic buildings. They don't create notability outside the local area, much less nationally or internationally.  They certainly don't merit Wikipedia articles.  What is so special about this demolition controversy? --Nonstopdrivel 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Partial response to comment - This one did make headlines nationally (I live at the other end of NZ to Auckland). I suspect the reason it made such a big splash is that the couple planning to do the demolition were both already of sufficient fame to merit it. It's a cause and effect thing - you say notability comes through news of the demolition, but the demolition wouldn't have been big news if the notability wasn't already there. Which brings us back here. Grutness...wha?  14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sally Ridge has over 200 unique hits on the New Zealand Google, which is not at all bad. Those hits range from articles in the NZ Herald to an IMDB listing to fashion magazines to TV station websites to Yahoo! "babe" shot groups.  That you might not like or agree with her notability is possible, but that she passes WP:V is incontrovertible.    RGTraynor  14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:Charlene.ficTaprobanus 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable. JJL 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to pass WP:V quite easily. Article may be a stub, but it just needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty notable in NZ. For those who say "nobody outside of New Zealand has ever heard of her," may I direct you to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. A person doesn't need to be known globally to be notable, and using this argument in AfD discussions lends itself to biasing Wikipedia in favor of certain countries/ethnic groups/etc. -- a very unencyclopedic bias. --Ace of Swords 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BIO, and notable person in New Zealand--JForget 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google News Archives comes up with 99 hits relating to her relating to her design work as well as the house issue. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the subject passes WP:BIO through multiple claims to notability backed by reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:14, 20 June 2007 (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.