366:
Plenty of secondary sources including taxation websites and also news articles on several legal aid websites supporting her career choice for paying off the student loans. I know the media prefer to focus on the salacious in reporting on her but the tax issue and confiscation of the earnings both
348:
suggests we need a source with an analysis of the affair to show
Schultz is notable. Does a high degree of salaciousness overcome non-notability? Also, Chzz implies that Schultz is appearing in magazines as a model. Presumably we could find a source confirming that, but when is a model notable?
264:, which has overwhelmingly failed two AFDs, but BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS applies to both articles. But it's absolutely not true that there are not "secondary sources": there is substantial independent coverage that is cited in the article.
88:
83:
188:
149:
160:(high-priced call girl; married an interesting person; pleaded guilty to tax evasion; divorce proceedings). There have been attempts to sanitize the article, and there was a
78:
410:. That two LA newspapers published stories relating to this person seems to imply some small amount of notability. The articles needs more secondary sourcing though.
285:
367:
appear to have more notability than her career on serious websites so editors (and the article) should not focus only on that with regards to WP:N.
116:
111:
168:: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.
120:
397:
17:
419:
399:
376:
358:
318:
300:
273:
252:
231:
203:
177:
103:
61:
214:
Appearances in the various magazines as a model would qualify as WP:N, hence warrants an article separate from the 'incident'
49:
434:
36:
433:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
107:
395:
345:
57:
240:
99:
67:
156:
BLP with no known sources showing notability; no known secondary sources. Several news reports show
415:
354:
246:
199:
173:
165:
392:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
372:
53:
341:
327:
411:
314:
261:
224:
350:
296:
269:
195:
169:
164:. However, actions by misguided editors are not a reason to keep an article. From
137:
368:
386:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
310:
217:
292:
265:
427:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
344:
requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources".
161:
144:
133:
129:
125:
89:
Articles for deletion/Cristina
Schultz (3rd nomination)
84:
Articles for deletion/Cristina
Schultz (2nd nomination)
391:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
189:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
437:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
280:
183:
286:list of Law-related deletion discussions
284:: This debate has been included in the
187:: This debate has been included in the
76:
79:Articles for deletion/Cristina Schultz
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
74:
239:- Agree with Chzz, this is beyond
24:
326:What does "notable" mean in a
1:
336:, but what policy says it is
454:
420:20:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
400:23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
333:sex + folly == interesting
62:23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
377:21:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
359:10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
319:16:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
301:09:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
274:08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
253:19:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
232:15:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
204:10:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
178:10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
430:Please do not modify it.
260:. Far more notable than
32:Please do not modify it.
73:AfDs for this article:
309:Clear notability.
44:The result was
402:
303:
289:
230:
206:
192:
50:non-admin closure
445:
432:
390:
388:
335:
290:
251:
249:
229:
227:
221:
215:
193:
147:
141:
123:
100:Cristina Schultz
68:Cristina Schultz
34:
453:
452:
448:
447:
446:
444:
443:
442:
441:
435:deletion review
428:
384:
331:
330:? I agree that
247:
244:
243:at this point.
225:
219:
216:
143:
114:
98:
95:
93:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
451:
449:
440:
439:
423:
422:
404:
403:
389:
381:
380:
379:
361:
321:
304:
278:
276:
262:Patrick Syring
255:
234:
208:
207:
154:
153:
94:
92:
91:
86:
81:
75:
72:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
450:
438:
436:
431:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
405:
401:
398:
396:
394:
387:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
362:
360:
356:
352:
347:
343:
339:
334:
329:
325:
322:
320:
316:
312:
308:
305:
302:
298:
294:
287:
283:
279:
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
254:
250:
248:FreeRangeFrog
242:
238:
235:
233:
228:
223:
222:
213:
210:
209:
205:
201:
197:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
151:
146:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
429:
426:
407:
393:Juliancolton
385:
363:
346:WP:SECONDARY
337:
332:
323:
306:
281:
257:
236:
218:
211:
184:
162:legal threat
157:
155:
45:
43:
31:
28:
258:Weak delete
241:WP:ONEEVENT
54:Ron Ritzman
412:Aubergine
408:Weak keep
158:notoriety
351:Johnuniq
324:Question
196:Johnuniq
170:Johnuniq
166:WP:BLP1E
150:View log
338:notable
117:protect
112:history
342:WP:BIO
145:delete
121:delete
369:Wayne
220:Chzz
148:) – (
138:views
130:watch
126:links
16:<
416:talk
373:talk
364:Keep
355:talk
315:talk
311:TJRC
307:Keep
297:talk
282:Note
270:talk
237:Keep
212:Keep
200:talk
185:Note
174:talk
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
58:talk
46:keep
328:BLP
293:THF
266:THF
48:. (
418:)
375:)
357:)
340:?
317:)
299:)
288:.
272:)
226:►
202:)
191:.
176:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
60:)
52:)
414:(
371:(
353:(
313:(
295:(
291:—
268:(
245:§
198:(
194:—
172:(
152:)
142:(
140:)
102:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.