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 with leave to speedy renominate if someone wishes to do so in good faith. Ron Ritzman ( talk ) 01:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

Chelsy Davy

Chelsy Davy ( edit ?| talk ?| history ?| protect ?| delete ?| links ?| watch ?| logs ?| views ) ? ( View log )

( Find sources:  Google ( books  · news  · scholar  · free images  · WP?refs )? · FENS  · JSTOR  · TWL )

Wikipedia is not a who dated who site, nor is it a tabloid speculation machine. As a student, she has no notability for a wikipedia article.. Arnoldxmidnight ( talk ) 15:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

• delete no notability other than being photographed with a prince on occasion. Pjw89 ( talk ) 15:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]
• delete she is known for sleeping with a man Franticjay ( talk ) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep comment the above three editors appear to be one and the same person. This is due to their sole editing being to these three articles:- Prince Harry of Wales , Florence Brudenell-Bruce and Chelsy Davy (see their contribution histories for evidence). Richard Harvey ( talk )
  • And all three have now been blocked as sockpuppets. May I humbly suggest that this AfD is no longer valid, that previous community consensus be restored and this discussion is speedily closed as keep? Claviere ( talk ) 16:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]
• Keep since the coverage clearly meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines . Whatever you think about the subject of the article, she is notable by Wikipedia's standards, the article is well sourced and there are no policy grounds I can see to delete it. There is clear community consensus to keep this article (cf previous AfD debates) Claviere ( talk ) 16:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions . ? Tom Morris ( talk ) 16:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

• delete No notability whatsoever. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 20:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]
  • Quick question, if I may. Notability is defined in the guidelines for general notability . Maybe I am misreading them, but the article appears to meet the criteria laid out there. Could you expand on your assessment of notability a little and tell us how the article fails to meet GNG? Many thanks, Claviere ( talk ) 20:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

According to the above posters the subject has been covered for one issue which fails part one of the GNG guidlines "Significant coverage". Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 20:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

The above posters, meaning the three blocked sockpuppet accounts? That aside, "significant coverage" means "means that sources address the subject directly in detail" (from GNG). I'd argue that articles such as [1] and [2] are significant coverage in major media sources and are both sources for the article. There are other sources there too. Just a though, Claviere ( talk ) 20:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep ; appears to be notable. People can attract coverage by independent sources in many different ways - through a relationship, through a crime, through setting a new world record for self-abuse, through discovering a cure for cancer, I don't care - it's the substantial coverage by independent sources which we care about. bobrayner ( talk ) 14:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

* Delete didn't they break up a few years ago? Why else does she have a profile? Koo Stark was an actress and had bands named after her. From the looks of it, the question of deletion has been brought up three times. Perhaps there is a reason. And Claviere, you seem so adamant about keeping her profile up - perhaps you are Chelsy Davy herself? Iamsam56 ( talk ) 19:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC) striking returning sock puppet comments -- Pontificalibus ( talk ) 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

Please assume good faith . I am not Chelsy Davy. This is a debate, which means we ask each other questions and try to establish how the article does or does not meet Wikipedia's policies. Something I note you have not even attempted to do. I am not adamant that keeping this article, I am adamant that we reach consensus based on policy. Claviere ( talk ) 19:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

• Keep due to defective nomination which states no valid basis for deletion. A student can be notable if they meet GNG.-- Milowent ? ^{talk blp-r} 04:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC) [ reply ]

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.