Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Mars


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Valerie Mars

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is being a billionaire enough to make you notable? Otherwise, I see so credible claim to notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: With the caveat of WP:OTHERSTUFF: Several Walton family members have only been "philanthropists" and have an article. Don't know if the people in that family three without wikilinks have gone through an AfD yet; someone can probably hit the Walkton family article history and see who's been unlinked.  (Maybe that would be a rough guide to whether Valerie Mars is likely to be linked to enough substantial, third-party, reliable, independent sources to meet WP:BIO. --Closeapple (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi! I think that being listed as #208 in Bloomberg Billionaires Index is strong statement about the (often hidden) potential of power which billionaires have. She and her three sisters are also among top-30 or so richest women in the world (per Forbes 3/2018 ranking). Certainly I consider per se everyone of the World's top-1000 Billionaires listed annually by Forbes worth at least a Stub-Class wikipedia article . To begin with; one can then develop such articles step by step. Wikipedia articles introducing very wealthy people, based on good references, help people to monitor oligarchy, which is more or less present in most countries. Tabloids, hasty non-social media etc are not so systematic in this. – By the way, did you look at all which references the article uses now? If so, which of them is no good? At this point, I have not yet check much of her philanthropist participation. Please feel free to add! -- And, have any of you idea why names in lists like The World's Billionaires 2015 have not been linked with corresponding (several hundreds of) articles? Cheers, --Paju~enwiki (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Another board membership (of stock company) added, using both Bloomberg (and company page of their Board Members. Although this is not 3rd party source, it is quite strictly regulated, by stock rules; misinforming could lead to criminal charges) as reference. --Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * She and her sisters are linked here as well: List of Americans by net worth. There are some references and some basic data of the two other Mars sisters (currently in red in the list mentioned above) e.g. in Wikidata already. Now I am waiting for this deletion request to vanish, before creating additional articles on billionaires in enwiki. Hoping to find some support instead of additional, non-supportative deletion requests. WKR,--Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The list of Americans by net worth seems to list billionaires with at least 4 billion USD rich enough to mark person worthy also for a wikipedia article per se? If so, such a limit should automatically apply as a minimum criteria for article stubs about other billionaires (from other countries) to be kept as well?? Based on Forbes (3/2018) this would mean some 570 billionaires to be automatically wikiworthy world wide. Please comment! Can we agree about some limit or not? --Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * She is businesswoman: vice president of major industrial corporation and also board member in major firms/organizations (almost like 1/2 professional board member). I have now included participation in two nonprofit organizations. --Paju~enwiki (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see comments but no vote? Szzuk (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously I would like to keep this article as I have created it. I am sure administrators can read the discussion also in enwiki. Paju~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The refs in the article support GNG. Szzuk (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mars family. I don't see much that supports GNG, other than inclusion in some lists of billionaires. When you see a mundane wedding announcement in the New York Times as a reference, you know sources are scarce. She seems to have kept a low profile: no scandals, wild behavior, major philanthropic efforts, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wedding announcement confirms her full name and family connections. I wonder why annual lists of billionaires (and more detailed entry descriptions) published by major business media would not be good references? On the contrary! They are, as these lists show also the relative position (wealth) of billionaires :-) Please compare: Is a ranking list published by some sport organization a valid reference?  --Paju~enwiki (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The refs are run-of-the mill coverage. This person is, apart from their huge stack of potatoes, entirely dull.TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Stack of potatoes can be transformed into liquor. Or power. :-) If one wishes to find sexy articles, I can think many other publications, and not an encyclopedia, where to find that kind of reading. Paju~enwiki (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And re all billionaires being notable, they are not. They merit an entry in a list of billionaires. That is all.TheLongTone (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep With the added content, now passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder how many male billionaires are not considered notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * comment by nominator The redirect suggested above seems sensible. Imo she is worth a mention somewhere, but otherwise is not worth an article.  As the content and refs show; she got married and an announcement appeared, she does the stuff that ladies who lunch do and so  is listed by the relevant organisations.TheLongTone (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment by editor: I guess there are tens of short billionaire articles mentioning just family relation (inheretance) and their worth. E.g. Cargill family members Pauline MacMillan Keinath and Marianne Cargill Liebmann.--Paju~enwiki (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also Imogene Powers Johnson. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that nobody would characterise serving on the boards of major corporations as stuff that "men who lunch" do. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep current article completely claim to notabilityآریانا فغان (talk) 14:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh puh-lease. The refs confirm that she exists and that article content is accurate. There is nothing whatsoever that serves to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that. Having a Billion of anything, I believe establishes notability, in any circumstance. ShoesssS Talk 17:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A billion of anything makes you notable? I want my article.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article with specific inclusion in global lists by Forbes and Bloomberg passes WP:GNG, and separate entry apart from Mars family warrants specific entry on Wiki. Simone2049 09:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would recommend that by 22 April if no further comments or discussion, article has AfD removed. Simone2049 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The closing admin will make that determination based on the arguments presented here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you - look forward to that happening.Simone2049 (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anyone who has has served on the boards of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Ahlstrom and Rabobank North America clearly has a position of influence on world affairs much greater than many of the state legislators, footballers who have played in EFL League Two, popular musicians who have got to number 42 in the charts etc. who get automatic notability passes, even if she does happen to be a lady who lunches rather than a gentleman who lunches, and that is the kind of person that any serious encyclopedia should cover. "She does the stuff that ladies who lunch do" must be one of the most overtly sexist comments that I have seen on Wikipedia, and there is plenty of competition for that title. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: having more influence on world affairs than a footballer is not grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Cherry-picked the footballer comment, ignored the rest.Simone2049 (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2018 (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.