Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Getty (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 no consensus. Good faith arguments taking both positions on whether sourcing is sufficient. Star  Mississippi  20:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Vanessa Getty
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

See Articles for deletion/Vanessa Getty. Previous discussion was avoided by the article creator by turning it into a G7 deletion, but less than a week later they simply recreate the article (identical? I can't tell). Apparently this doesn't apply for a G4 speedy deletion, which seems like a shortcoming of the system. Anyway, I guess this means that the previous AfD should be reopened, so you may consider this a procedural AfD opening.

Previous AfD nomination reason was

"Promotional article on a Non notable socialite and philanthropist who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources thus fails GNG and fails WP:ANYBIO also, the plethora of sources are a mirage to inundate the inexperienced new page reviewer. A before search turns up nothing concrete. They are model too but WP:ENT isn’t met. " Fram (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BASIC, e.g. the sources in the article include:
 * Don't I Know You From the Party Pages? (NYT, 2006, contextualizes her work as a model with biographical and related information)
 * Pacific Heights (W Magazine, 2006, includes in-depth biographical information)
 * Stunning Pacific Heights mansion where Vanessa Getty once lived asks $30 million (SFGate, 2018, includes biographical information)
 * Billy Getty Pops the Question / He presented the ring before Christmas (SFGate, 1998, more biographical information)
 * Family Ties (NYT, 2001, "with the latter married to the modelesque society-column habitué Vanessa Getty")
 * Vanessa Getty, Trevor Traina Named Honorary Co-chairs of San Francisco Gala (WWD, 2015)
 * Dior’s Grown-Up ‘Prom’ in San Francisco (WSJ, 2015, article preview includes mention of "honorary co-chair Vanessa Getty")
 * Celebrating The Fashionable and Philanthropic Force that is Vanessa Getty (Vanity Fair, 2018, "This month, we pay homage to seasoned fashionista, entrepreneur, and dedicated philanthropist, Vanessa Getty.")
 * How San Francisco’s Wealthiest Families Launched Kamala Harris (Politico, 2019, mentions include, "The group included Vanessa Getty, by then one of Harris' closest pals")
 * The citation formatting in the article could be improved to make this more clear, and the article can be further developed due to the combined depth of information available from these sources. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Louis Puchner (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. No opinion on notability, but "the plethora of sources are a mirage to inundate the inexperienced new page reviewer" in the previous AfD by Celestina007 might reasonably lead an inexperienced editor to feel browbeaten into requesting deletion, and then change their mind. The fact they restarted it under the same user name suggests good faith. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is more likely that it can be confusing to editors that there are nearly 20 sources here being linked to Wikipedia to establish notability when nearly any of them amount to much of anything notable about the topic. Megtetg34 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also - tagging the original nominator so they can participate in this discussion . Megtetg34 (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as in-depth articles are available and there are a lot of them. Following are some selective ones:
 * Givers & Shakers: Vanessa Getty, Patron Saint of Animals in 7x7 (magazine)
 * Celebrating The Fashionable and Philanthropic Force that is Vanessa Getty in Vanity Fair (magazine)
 * Pacific Heights in W (magazine)
 * Covered in Growing Up Getty book
 * Covered in detail in Claiborne Swanson Frank's book
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This seems to be almost entirely made up of interviews, primary sources or articles about the topic's in-laws. Source 1 is trivial. The article isn't about her, lacks sigcov. Source 2 is about the topic's family. There are a couple sentences about her. This article probably has the most depth, if we can construe it as that, than any of the other articles. Source 3 is not about the topic, it's about a house. Source 4 is a trivial mention midway down the page. Source 5, trivial mention again. Source 6, interview on a blog. Source 7, like source 3, 5 and 8, is in the SF Gate. This is important because multiple articles from one source counts as.... one source. For example, if there are 100 articles in the New York Times about the topic that does not mean the topic is notable enough for inclusion. The topic must have multiple RS. Regardless, the article isn't about her anyways. It's about her wedding and marriage to Billy Getty. I think it's important to note at this time that these people are relatives of J. Paul Getty and the Getty Family. This family is of note. They are frequently covered in the media. Vanessa Jarman, by marriage to Billy Getty, doesn't appear to be notable at all. Source 8, another SF Gate article about the Getty's, not Vanessa. Source 9, article in the NY Times about the Getty's, not Vanessa Jarman. Source 10, same online blog as Source 6. Interview, and primary source. Non-notable publication. Source 11, trivial one line mention. Source 12, trivial one line mention. No sig cov. Source 13 does not exist. Source 14 and 15 is source 10 repeated twice. Source 16 is a Vanity Fair post that we could count as 1 source. It's by far the best source of all of the sources as it is the only article that is about her. Except... there is no editor on it. No writer. There is no byline, or that a reporter or a writer at Vanity Fair wrote it.. There is only a phrase at the top that says PRODUCED BY VANITY FAIR STUDIOS WITH SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, leading me to believe that this is likely an advertisement, or promoted/paid content. Source 16, she gets a trivial mention yet again. The source 16 article, as Michael Kruse of Politico wrote it, was about Kamala Harris and "oil heir Billy Getty"'s connections and resources. On that note, I'm going to point to WP:BIOFAMILY. This topic, as it stands, does not meet the GNG requirements for an independent article.
 * Keep per Beccaynr. There is a lot of coverage to sift through, but FWIW she is easily notable and passes WP:GNG. It doesn't matter what's cited in the article rather it is about her notability, so WP:NEXIST applies. More sources to expand the article:
 * 307 results in SFGATE
 * 254 results in WWD magazine
 * 60 results in Vogue
 * 31 results in W Magazine
 * It is pertinent to note that a lot more coverage is available in archives under Vanessa Jarman name. The rationale above my comment isn't policy-based as it stands. 92.22.16.106 (talk) 07:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Trivial mentions are policy based, as many of the articles are mere one line mentions of her or about her in-laws, the Getty's. If there were 3 articles in RS with sig cov, I'm happy to change my vote, but a mere one line sentence or a photo of her at a Gala or something like that won't suffice. Megtetg34 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Mild Delete the discussion above points out many sources, but the article is more of a resume, she went to school, was a dancer and is involved in a few charities. I'd expect the article to be more fleshed out if she was truly notable, I think it's mostly "ref stacking" with trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article was created by a new editor, and in this discussion, sources with more in-depth coverage have been identified that can be used to expand the article. WP:DINC, and the state of this article is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep seems notable. I don't think deleting it is a solution when sources have been uncovered and very likely that page will be fleshed out if kept. Meets WP:BASIC. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:A1AB:12C4:EC87:8DE0 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There has yet to be 3 independent standalone articles posted in this discussion with SIGCOV about this topic. All of the sources included are trivial, a picture of the topic, or covering the topic's notable family or spouse; not the topic itself. If you have 3 articles about this topic in RS that are not paid for content, post them here. The anonymous IP "Keep" crowd is heavily construed on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And since this article has been created, deleted and created again, I think it would be prudent to finally follow up with 3:REFS to keep it. Megtetg34 (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * She is a Getty, and part of the notable family with her independent notability supported, e.g. by the sources identified at the beginning of the discussion, as well as the wide coverage identified later in the discussion, and the WP:BASIC guideline, which includes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - the secondary context and commentary available about her supports her notability and can allow this article to be further developed. Beccaynr (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets general notability requirements, per cited references. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2022 (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.