Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamara Rotolo (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Tamara Rotolo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article's subject is only notable for being the mother of an illegitimate child of a prince... so essentially I'm nominating this on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. This nomination is similar to Articles for deletion/Nicole Coste. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Subject is not notable per nom. Redirect to Jazmin Grace Grimaldi or Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Similar situation as Nicole Coste.  —  AjaxSmack   13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Albert II, Prince of Monaco.86.150.213.178 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This person is the subject of much media attention, and is notable for this alone. This is proven by a quick search. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ditto.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I don't even think you need to redirect this.  See WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NTEMP, WP:1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL.  This woman had sex with a royal and had a child out of wedlock.  There was a scandal, but it's settled now, with little fallout to the Prince.  She is not notable b/c she had sex with a royal.  She is not notable because of the scandal, which was one event, which is now settled.  Notability is not temporary, but the previous arguments seem to speak otherwise. Should she be mentioned in the article?  Yes.  Should there even be a redirect?  I say no, based on the above. Roodog2k (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * COMMENT This article was previously deleted, and then recreated (this nom). I say this not to support my argument, rather, just as more information for others to decide for themselves.  When deleted articles are recreated, they should be done so without prejudice. Roodog2k (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply That was over 5 years ago. There has been much more written about her since. Also, she passes the general notability guidelines through her continued coverage. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * comment Notibility is not temporary. WP:NTEMP This is only being covered because of the marriage of Prince Albert.  Like I said, it was OK to recreate the article, but in 5 years, this is all we get:  she's the mother of a child fathered by a monarch.  Notibility is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. Strong delete. Roodog2k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Plenty of third party media coverage in her own right Little Professor (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete in the current form per WP:BLP and WP:V. She may or may not be notable, but the current sourcing of the article is entirely inadequate for a BLP. The only sources provided are an article in the Daily Mail (a tabloid and as such not a reliable source for BLPs) and a screenshot of a primary source hosted on a random image webhost.  Sandstein   06:16, 9 July 2011 (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.