Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Jackson (actress) (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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WWGB (talk) 01:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Jackson (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Minor model with no significant achievements. Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Has sufficient coverage in her father's existing article. Actually the third nomination, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Katherine Jackson. WWGB (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the AfD was applied to this version of the article, which has since been expanded. I will leave it to others to decide on the merit of the current version. WWGB (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep First off, the current state of the article is a travesty, a citation-less blip of a paragraph. I have restored the last good version, but in case that gets reverted, discussion participants should look at this version from April 4. As for the subject patter, Paris has been discussed in-depth in several reliable sources.

• Rolling Stone magazine, Paris Jackson: Life After Neverland
• Harpers Bazaar, Paris in the Spring
• CNN, Paris Jackson makes late-night debut
• Toronto Sun, Paris Jackson to star in Madonna biopic: Report
• People, Jackson Reportedly Signs Major Contract with Calvin Klein

Michael Jackson died in 2009, you can't use WP:NOTINHERITED 8 years after the fact. The coverage of Paris Jackson is solidly independent of her parentage. TheValeyard (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Jackson article passes muster, she is notable under the simplest of WP standards. Cllgbksr (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep – Per a source review, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She's clearly notable.Fork me (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's obvious to anyone with a brain looking at this objectively that not only is she notable, but more importantly, her notability is actually growing even more. Even if she ends up as the next Kim Kardashian that's still notable. --Dr who1975 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The media routinely covers her personal life as a celebrity. She easily passes WP:GNG. Looking at today's news alone, BBC News, ABC News, NY Magazine, People; all where she was the central focus of the story. News AU covered her multi-million dollar deal with Kelvin Klein, and The Sun covered her upcoming prospects in film. She meets WP:GNG at every turn. All subsequent guidelines are secondary and really irrelevant when GNG has been so widely met. Mkdw ^talk 22:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She's now clearly notable in her own right, has been the subject of a bunch of articles in a bunch of high profile outlets, and has now signed with a major modeling agency. We've kept pages for people with considerably less exposure than her, so this article is legit. -- Hux (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep: Clearly notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Hugely notable. Mjbmr (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability not in question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2017 (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.