Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Sellers


 * 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. sufficient consensus that she is notable enough due to extensive coverage JForget  00:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Victoria Sellers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Celebrespawn's main activity seems to be getting herself in trouble. No notability, serious BLP questions -- her sorrows are referenced, but even so do we need to shout them at the world? == no article. Herostratus (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing of encyclopedic value in the article: it is just child of celebrity plus gossip. Notability is not inherited: being the child of notable parents, or having a notable friend, is not sufficient. Having legal problems is not notable. Yes, some space-filling gossip articles have been published, but nothing encyclopedic. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Without making a value judgement about her contributions to humankind, she has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time.  The subject is a topic on which users of the encyclopedia are likely to have interest.--Milowent • talkblp-r  15:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP states "Biographies of living persons must be written...with regard for the subject's privacy...the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered". WP:BLP trumps WP:NOTABILITY. Herostratus (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Aside from her famous parents, Ms Sellars is well-known in her own capacity, albeit for her association with Heidi Fleiss and assorted drug busts. Ghostwords (talk)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Notorious in her own right for her various brushes with the law and questionable companions. The newspapers have just lapped it up, making privacy a moot point. Posing for Playboy also indicates she has no few concerns in that area anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. And the standards employed by the papers don't negate WP:BLP. Herostratus (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that Playboy comment is WP:OR, but the horses have bolted the (news) corral, you can't unscramble this egg, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject of multiple stories in independent sources. A public figure. Carrite (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment She fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. None of the events she has been involved with appear are notable WP:NEWSEVENT.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS, and has different standards of notability.  I hope! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, the subject of multiple reliable sources, even international coverage, and not merely in gossip rags. The story in The Independent clinches it for me: "[Her deportation from the U.S. to the UK] marks a sad and typically chaotic end to the reign of one of Tinseltown's most notorious party animals. For two decades, Victoria Sellers has been a walking symbol of Hollywood excess, a hard-living socialite whose instinct for trouble surpasses those of both her famous parents combined. Recalling her wildest days recently, she described a 20-year blizzard of cocaine and amphetamine abuse. 'I did drugs because I didn't really like myself, and I didn't like myself because I was doing drugs,' she said. 'It was crazy. I was just going round in circles.'"  This is not the story of someone merely born to notable parents who has been hounded by gossip rags (cf. Suri Cruise): Sellers has independently maintained a high social profile, done interviews, and attempted to boost her own fame through high profile venues, such as Playboy and a reality TV show.  So I think the BLP concerns for privacy are moot here.  That her notability is mostly notoriety doesn't change anything, notwithstanding all the unelaborated, abstract invocations of BLP.  postdlf (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "...maintained a high social profile... and attempted to boost her own fame...". Exactly. She has accomplished exactly nothing of note whatsoever in her lifetime. We do not have categories Category:Losers or Category:Famous for being famous. Her career is not encyclopedic. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag. We are not required to host unencyclopedic articles just because a person might meet the standards of WP:GNG. If anything, the idea the she would be pleased with the additional notoriety gained by having an article here militates against such an article. We are not a tool for self-promoters. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should be careful about sliding back and forth between two different (and contradictory) rationales: clearly my comments as to her own purposeful activities to achieve/engage with her notability were meant to rebut your arguments above that there are relevant privacy concerns here. That she may be considered a self-promoter does not affect a judgment of her notability either way in the slightest, because we don't exclude article subjects just because they intentionally tried to achieve notability (an obviously irrelevant consideration and unworkable standard that would have dire consequences for most biographies on WP).  Nor is this Wikipedia article itself an example of her self-promotion; all of the reliable sources upon which this article is based are independent of Sellers.  So your comments about Wikipedia not being a tool for self-promotion have no relevance to this article. We also do not limit Wikipedia to articles on people who we think have made constructive contributions to the world, which would also be an unworkable and completely POV standard.  I don't think Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian have made any lasting contributions to...anything...but they are indisputably notable despite being, in my POV, useless (see also Virginie Amélie Avegno Gautreau for someone I've often thought of as a 19th century Paris Hilton; when the first and most apt word to describe someone's accomplishments is "socialite", you probably haven't done much to advance civilization).  And how could I forget: The New York Times ran a feature entirely about Snooki for god's sake.  Such is western culture.  I think this is overused as a retort, but here it is appropriate: please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT and rethink your comments.  postdlf (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2010 (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.