889:, read the comments, did a bit of checking and found a more recent book source which discussed her, I was swayed toward keep. I may not be interested in this person, but clearly a lot of people are. We personally, either as individuals or as small cliques of Knowledge (XXG) editors, do not determine notability - we have agreed to let reliable sources do that, and the sources indicate some notability for this person under our guidelines. However, the delete !votes significantly outweighed the keeps, and while some were not on-policy ("per nom" or variations of
295:, but most ironically, sixof the nine editors who've chimed in to date on that talk page have argued for deleting the argument. Those who argue for keeping it do not reference any Knowledge (XXG) guideline or criterion for notability; they simply argue that tabloid argument of not "disadvantaging" the readers who want to read this (even if there's little substance on Sarah Larson for an article), and another argues, "It's freaking wikipedia. It's not Britannica. It's ok. I enjoy reading stupid, senseless articles on here". How exactly were
897:
or making good points. While the keep comments were also making good points and citing GNG, I wasn't sure there was enough consensus for a keep. I didn't want to close this as a delete, as I feel that would be inappropriate. Nor did I want to close either as no consensus or keep, as I felt I might be
314:. If her modeling makes her notable, then why has she not been covered in stories in the modeling industry press? Has anyone heard of her since those two seconds in 2008 when she was merely in tabloids for dating George Clooney? Another editor remarked, "once notable, always notable". In fact, she's
309:
are particularly threadbare. One editor said that she received plenty of significant coverage establishing notability. If this is true, where are they? That editor also said "This coverage is still continuing now", and points to a source reporting her being signed up by a modeling agency. But merely
290:
A subsequent editor comments to agree, and then another one, JesseRafe, comments to say that an newbie
Wikipedian argued to keep the article on the basis of giving readers who want they want to read, but that's a tabloid's argument, and not an encyclopedia's. Moreover, JesseRafe references
299:
the arguments on which consensus was assessed??? As for the last two editors in the March 2008 AfD, one was for keeping it, saying, as the entirety of this argument, "I came here from the article, I don't check AfDs.", whereas the the editor who voted to delete gave a way more reasoned
367:
by the modeling agency in question, with a citation. In other words, the one thing independent of
Clooney or that one reality TV episode that her apologists argue as the basis for keeping her article lasted about as long as her relationship to Clooney. Again, not notable.
843:
situation to me. The list of people who don't get
Knowledge (XXG) articles includes most game show contestants, most girlfriends of celebrities, most Vegas cocktail waitresses, and most failed models. Being the combination of all four doesn't add up to anything more.
813:
Fortensky was just one off the top of my head to illustrate that the coverage of such things goes back to pre-internet days. Many many celebrity spouses are not notable at all (say Kevin
Grandalski, you'd have to google of course) because they don't get any
763:
Sources may have been added, but they're rehashing the same thing; this woman just drew really good luck in winning a network game show (a category where only reality show winners, millionaire
Jeopardy, WWTBAM winners and the rare board runners like
280:
seem well-reasoned, but then the third editor says "It's not our job to make value judgements. Since she has been noticed in several ways by reliable sources, she is notable." This is a ridiculous comment. It is
677:: She's notable enough to meet WP:GNG. I am not aware of the rule that says someone who got significant news coverage over an extended period of time primarily because of who they dated is excluded from GNG.
195:
241:
This person is a former cocktail waitress who appeared on one episode of a reality TV show and dated George
Clooney for a year. None of these things, nor all three of them, merit a Knowledge (XXG) article.
226:
This person is a former cocktail waitress who appeared on one episode of a reality TV show and dated George
Clooney for a year. None of these things, nor all three of them, merit a Knowledge (XXG) article.
285:
our job to make judgements of notability, and she has none. Dating George
Clooney, being on one episode of a reality TV show and a brief mention of being signed by a modeling agency is not "several ways".
101:
96:
91:
323:
Not only does Larson not bear notability, but the consensus of editors at the two AfDs and the article's talk page clearly reflects this. This article should've been deleted four years ago.
634:, not articles about Clooney that mention her in passing. Some of it is a little tabloidy, sure, but not completely or irredeemably so. I also re-added the part about her being named to
427:
The subject seems notable by virtue of the numerous independent sources which comment upon her. The previous discussion was a clear keep and this nomination just seems to be a blatant
453:
156:
638:
mag's "100 Most
Beautiful" list, which had been removed just prior to the start of this AfD, and from what I can tell from the sources, represents some of her notability.
560:
per nom and
Nightscream's comments above. While we can't be judgmental about what a famous person does, since 2009 (or so) we have been more discriminating about having
189:
475:
772:
Liz Taylor at the very least, while Larson never got near an engagement with Clooney. Using sources (and low-quality ones at that; when you're dragged down to the
86:
318:
notable. Another editor said, "Still getting considerable press for events after her breakup from Clooney. Looks like she'll be around for a while." This a joke.
310:
being signed up by a modeling agency doesn't make you Cheryl Tiegs or Cindy Crawford or Kate Upton. Many people are signed with agencies; that doesn't make them
864:
Most, but not all. I wonder why people hate Sarah Larson so much. Maybe its because she inexplicably meets GNG when so few worthy people do!--
56:". Whether they should appear in something which purports to be an encyclopedia might have been a more accurate way of putting it, but since
589:), and being on People's 50 most beautiful list is an accomplishment itself. She's notable, maybe not deservedly, but notable nonetheless.
500:
Numerous sources often comment on the people whom celebrities' date; that doesn't mean that they merit articles. That's goes directly to
835:- Vast majority of sources (including the added ones) are either unreliable/tabloid, or mainly about George Clooney. This looks like a
780:
there's no further you can do down under our sourcing suggestions) rehashed several times gives me little confidence in this article.
17:
682:
129:
124:
914:
873:
855:
823:
804:
755:
730:
698:
669:
646:
598:
577:
552:
536:
513:
489:
467:
444:
417:
412:
377:
349:
332:
269:
251:
236:
133:
69:
902:. So I am not closing, but adding my opinion, and hoping to assist another closer to mark this as No consensus or even keep.
768:
ever get an article here) and getting a Hollywood bachelor for awhile. There's also a huge difference as Fortensky actually
210:
116:
177:
54:
Whether people like Sarah Larson should be notable in the history of civilization is also not what we are here to judge.
933:
40:
840:
392:
391:
are non-notable unless they established notability for themselves, which Larson clearly hasn't. Not notable per
440:
890:
428:
171:
501:
665:
523:
She just seems like someone who dated someone notable, which doesn't make her notable herself. She was on
899:
167:
929:
509:
373:
328:
306:
277:
265:
247:
232:
36:
894:
432:
120:
850:
65:
217:
795:
685:
are not notable, but that is not what we are talking about here. Whether people like Sarah Larson
594:
436:
203:
708:
112:
75:
911:
532:
342:, coverage is routine at best, notability hinges entirely on dating Clooney which is not enough.
836:
661:
573:
485:
463:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
928:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
505:
369:
324:
261:
243:
228:
561:
57:
845:
678:
549:
527:, but we certainly aren't creating articles for everyone who's ever been on a game show --
183:
61:
885:. I was going to close this; however, as I read the article and the sources, checked the
657:
565:
60:
is irredemably skewed towards accepting notability based on tabloid trivia, here we are.
783:
765:
746:
721:
639:
590:
545:
396:
607:
904:
866:
816:
691:
528:
610:
through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including such media as
569:
481:
459:
689:
be notable in the history of civilization is also not what we are here to judge.--
150:
886:
586:
711:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
630:, among others. Note that the sources I've added are articles about
292:
922:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
388:
606:– I've added multiple additional citations. The subject meets
260:, per nom. That this survived two prior AfDs is ridiculous.
740:
660:. Notability is not inherited, even from movie stars.
360:
146:
142:
138:
585:
she's notable enough to get hundreds of clicks a day (
202:
718:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
216:
102:
Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson (4th nomination)
97:
Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson (3rd nomination)
92:
Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson (2nd nomination)
387:She wouldn't be here if she hadn't dated Clooney.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
936:). No further edits should be made to this page.
454:list of Television-related deletion discussions
681:, anyone? Of course, one night stands like
587:http://stats.grok.se/en/201203/Sarah%20Larson
305:The arguments for keeping the article in the
8:
474:Note: This debate has been included in the
452:Note: This debate has been included in the
476:list of People-related deletion discussions
504:, and has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT.
473:
451:
564:. The sources cited in the past AfDs are
84:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
52:. Ugh. However, as Milowent says, "
82:
87:Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson
24:
276:The first two arguments in the
1:
741:substantial changes were made
363:the fact that she was later
953:
915:16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
874:01:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
599:22:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
578:23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
553:13:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
537:01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
514:00:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
490:00:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
468:00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
445:21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
418:18:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
378:05:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
350:04:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
333:05:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
270:05:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
252:04:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
237:04:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
70:17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
856:17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
824:13:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
805:09:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
756:20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
731:20:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
699:03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
670:05:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
647:00:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
925:Please do not modify it.
624:Las Vegas Review-Journal
293:that article's talk page
32:Please do not modify it.
893:), others were citing
81:AfDs for this article:
562:properly sourced BLPs
739:Relisting because
48:The result was
872:
822:
802:
754:
733:
729:
697:
645:
492:
479:
470:
457:
944:
927:
907:
871:
853:
848:
821:
803:
798:
792:
791:
786:
753:
751:
744:
728:
726:
719:
717:
713:
696:
644:
642:
480:
458:
431:contrary to our
347:
345:Ten Pound Hammer
221:
220:
206:
154:
136:
34:
952:
951:
947:
946:
945:
943:
942:
941:
940:
934:deletion review
923:
905:
887:page view stats
851:
846:
841:WP:NOTINHERITED
796:
789:
784:
781:
747:
745:
722:
720:
706:
679:Larry Fortensky
640:
416:
408:
402:
393:WP:NOTINHERITED
343:
163:
127:
111:
108:
106:
79:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
950:
948:
939:
938:
918:
917:
898:introducing a
891:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
879:
878:
877:
876:
859:
858:
829:
828:
827:
826:
808:
807:
766:Michael Larson
758:
736:
735:
734:
715:
714:
703:
702:
701:
672:
650:
649:
601:
580:
555:
539:
517:
516:
494:
493:
471:
448:
447:
433:editing policy
429:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
421:
420:
410:
406:
400:
381:
380:
353:
352:
336:
335:
320:
319:
302:
301:
287:
286:
278:March 2008 AfD
273:
272:
224:
223:
160:
107:
105:
104:
99:
94:
89:
83:
80:
78:
73:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
949:
937:
935:
931:
926:
920:
919:
916:
913:
912:
909:
908:
901:
896:
892:
888:
884:
881:
880:
875:
869:
868:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
854:
849:
842:
838:
834:
831:
830:
825:
819:
818:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
801:
799:
788:
787:
779:
775:
771:
767:
762:
759:
757:
752:
750:
743:on March 31.
742:
738:
737:
732:
727:
725:
716:
712:
710:
705:
704:
700:
694:
693:
688:
684:
680:
676:
673:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
651:
648:
643:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
602:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
556:
554:
551:
548:and others. —
547:
543:
540:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
518:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:WP:Notability
499:
496:
495:
491:
487:
483:
477:
472:
469:
465:
461:
455:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
422:
419:
414:
409:
405:
399:
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
366:
362:
358:
355:
354:
351:
346:
341:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
317:
313:
308:
307:June 2008 AfD
304:
303:
298:
294:
289:
288:
284:
279:
275:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
239:
238:
234:
230:
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:Find sources:
161:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
924:
921:
910:
903:
900:WP:Supervote
882:
865:
832:
815:
793:
782:
777:
773:
769:
760:
748:
723:
707:
690:
686:
674:
662:Stuartyeates
653:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
603:
582:
566:not reliable
557:
541:
524:
520:
497:
424:
403:
397:
384:
364:
359:, An editor
356:
344:
339:
315:
311:
296:
282:
257:
240:
225:
213:
207:
199:
192:
186:
180:
174:
164:
113:Sarah Larson
76:Sarah Larson
53:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
895:WP:ONEEVENT
852:| prattle _
847:‑Scottywong
814:coverage.--
525:Fear Factor
506:Nightscream
370:Nightscream
325:Nightscream
262:Nightscream
244:Nightscream
229:Nightscream
190:free images
774:Daily Mail
749:Sandstein
724:Sandstein
628:Daily Mail
614:magazine,
550:Wrathchild
361:just added
316:never been
62:Black Kite
930:talk page
683:Sara Leal
641:Paul Erik
616:Us Weekly
591:JesseRafe
546:SpeakFree
482:• Gene93k
460:• Gene93k
300:argument.
37:talk page
932:or in a
906:SilkTork
867:Milowent
837:WP:BLP1E
817:Milowent
709:Relisted
692:Milowent
626:and the
529:Tenebrae
413:contribs
283:entirely
157:View log
39:or in a
839:and/or
797:chatter
770:married
656:as per
620:The Sun
570:Bearian
498:Comment
365:dropped
312:notable
196:WP refs
184:scholar
130:protect
125:history
833:Delete
761:Delete
687:should
654:Delete
636:People
622:, the
612:People
558:Delete
542:Delete
521:Delete
437:Warden
385:Delete
357:Update
340:Delete
258:Delete
168:Google
134:delete
58:WP:GNG
658:WP:1E
297:these
211:JSTOR
172:books
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
883:Keep
785:Nate
776:and
675:Keep
666:talk
608:WP:N
604:Keep
595:talk
583:Keep
574:talk
544:per
533:talk
510:talk
486:talk
464:talk
441:talk
425:Keep
401:peak
389:WAGs
374:talk
329:talk
266:talk
248:talk
233:talk
204:FENS
178:news
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
66:talk
778:Sun
632:her
407:ree
348:•
218:TWL
155:– (
870:•
820:•
695:•
668:)
618:,
597:)
576:)
568:.
535:)
512:)
488:)
478:.
466:)
456:.
443:)
435:.
395:.
376:)
331:)
268:)
250:)
235:)
198:)
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
68:)
800:)
794:(
790:•
664:(
593:(
572:(
531:(
508:(
484:(
462:(
439:(
415:)
411:(
404:F
398:S
372:(
327:(
264:(
246:(
231:(
222:)
214:·
208:·
200:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
170:(
162:(
159:)
153:)
115:(
64:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.