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 delete. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Wohl[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Renominated: speedy deleted twice, then deleted by Afd on 6/13/2007. See here for discussion. Article re-added with no additional justification. Fails to meet WP:BIO. Subject made a minimally notable film, at best. Lots of the sources are junk. Ward3001 00:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC) link to original discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arden Wohl fixing re-nom, abstain Ardent ^†alk _∈ 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, three trivial mentions in Google News Archive, one of them this fashion faux-pas, the other something fannish about the Strokes, one of whom she later dated. I suppose the film work prevents her from being a Paris Hilton, exactly, because she can't be famous for (being famous for nothing in particular), but there's no apparent WP:BIO tripwire here. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like this girl to be notable. She certainly deserves attention. But there's no proof that she is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia yet. Best of luck to her, but she belongs on MySpace.com, not Wikipedia (for now). OfficeGirl 05:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also dont feel like her claim to notability is strong enough, considering the coverage she has received Corpx 15:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep Wohl was featured in the July edition of Vogue. It should be noted that "someone" deleted this item (about Vogue) from the article..nice try. establishing notability as per the review a few weeks ago which gave a concensus to relist..must we go through this every few weeks. and by the way comparing her to Paris Hilton is sort of slanderous and libelous. Arden Wohl was featured in July 2007 edition of Vogue, fulfilling notability requirments,(see http://parkavenuepeerage.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/the-hills/) she is also mentioned in movie short stub Coven (short film) She is currently working on the Playground Project with George Clooney, I think the article should at least be "unsalted", it was originally "salted", as I am new to all of this and did not know the proper protacol, regarding recreating of an article..I thought if you edited it properly you could remove the deletion tags..sorry this was originally removed because of notability requirments, but Vogue is a highly regarded publication. Tweety21 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Item about Vogue (magazine) inserted by Tweety21 on 6/12/2007 has been in the article continously since then. "Someone" never deleted it. As of this moment there are two references in the article to the magazine feature. Nice try. Ward3001 21:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May one day be notable, with all the money her family apparently has and all of her famous friends, but not yet. Precious Roy 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the notability here either, maybe later. Arienh4^(Talk) 09:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though she's a socialite. Bearian 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought I'd do a minimum amount of looking to see if I could find the fabled Vogue article—lo and behold, I found it here (password thru bugmenot.com or check the edit history for Wohl's talk page). The Vogue is relatively substantial, and combined with The Observer and Paper articles, has convinced me that she meets the bare minimum for WP:BIO. I edited out a lot of fluff and puffery yesterday so the article's a bit more presentable. Anyhow, as I've found with another article recently, I don't necessarily think she deserves an article yet, but I do think she meets notability, which is what this discussion is about. Precious Roy 21:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Speaking as the closer of the DRV, I have been repeatedly asked by Tweety21 (and her IPs) to help keep the article. That is certainly not why I am here. Having closed the DRV, I am loath to !vote either way on the inclusion/deletion of the article. I would simply like to say that the article does have multiple reliable sources. The open questions are simply: Do these references confer notability? And are they trivial mentions? I urge the closing admin to consider the article and arguments closely, and the vote-stacking only insomuch as this is not a vote, and not to unduly discount the arguments for keeping because of the misbehavior in this DRV. IronGargoyle 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the articles are primarily about Wohl, so she clears the notability bar (barely). -- Whpq 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She comes from a rich family, went to college, and made a 13 minute film. That's about as non-notable as you can get. 76.3.84.10 18:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the deletion review text that Tweety21 pasted here that followed the last AfD for this article. Precious Roy 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~strong keep~~ clear bias against Wohl, because of socio-economic status (see Roys comment at the bottom where he mentions her money why is this relevant?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC) (this is Tweety21; one !vote per editor)[reply]
- The mention of the money is merely because it's easier for people with money to become "notable." Besides, the article itself makes a mention of the "hefty sum" they got from selling an art collection. Not really any more relevant there than here. Precious Roy 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2 " has been covered in an article by Vogue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.247.117 (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC) (This is third time Tweety21 has tried to vote. One vote per editor.)[reply]
Comment update-have changed category to director-stub, I read the qualifications for this category, seems to be less stringent than for a full blown article- hope this helps, as can be expanded on later on, especially when George Clooney movie comes out. See www.clooneystudios.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except she's not directing the movie, she's co-producing it. Her two director credits are both student films, so calling her a director is kind of pushing it. Precious Roy 20:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Thats fair enough Roy, but I still think co-producing a movie, with the likes of George Clooney and Soderburge is fairly notable for anybody...I mean I'm not co-producing a movie with Clooney..that sort of impresses me...socialite status aside. and check out her movie coven..it is quite interesting even for a school thesis. The narratiion is by Leelee Sobieski and listed on her wikipedia as well..:O) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I wasn't saying that producing a movie with Clooney + Soderbergh isn't impressive, I was saying she doesn't really have enough directing credits to consider her a director. Precious Roy 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although Dhartung's delete vote states 3 mentions in google, this is not the case, notable mention in Paper Magazine, a notable publication, and Vogue, as well as many notable New York publications, see for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
commment at the very least with the substantial charity work involved in and contributions to the New York charity/art scene, at least worth as (I hate to use the word but...) socialite, (hey we have to remember alot of socialites were responsible for women getting the vote, alot of charities...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_11 Tweety21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I just want to say that I have never asked anybody to vote for this article, only to check it out and vote with their feeling! I mean I have nothing to gain weather it stays or goes...(seriously folkes !! I dont know the girl!) I have also asked for help to keep the article, meaning help to edit it properly to bring it to standard..I think everybody really needs to take a pill!!! seriously!! none of us are making money at this!!! I mean maybe I am on a mini crusade to promote some up and coming people ( I am kind of sick of just seeing Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie on the covers of all the mags...I mean are they the only notable people in America?? how annoying is this) I just thought I would get this off my chest because I dont think I deserve the mental abuse heaped upon my pretty little Canadian head....:O) seriously folkes ! lighten up!!! this isnt the war or anything!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment if you skim out the votes that mention her being "rich" you don't have many left...as someone who is of humble means, I would like to think that if I accomplished something nobody would hold it against me that I am just "middle-class", lets keep status out of this..and by the way I know many people who come from Rich backgrounds but who are made to make their own way and are not given any money by their parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tweety21 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Once again, Tweety21 sets up a false premise for an argument. Exactly one vote mentions her being rich. Also see Tweety21's previous comments: "someone" never deleted the item about the Vogue article. And comparing Wohl to Paris Hilton is not "sort of slanderous and libelous". Ward3001 14:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment may I quote this delete vote.. - "She comes from a rich family, went to college, "..yada yada and you dont think comparing someone to a person who spent time in jail, and been in porno is an insult and slanderou..." I am not partaking in this nonsense anymore.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response - That's the one vote. Where are the others that, if skimmed out, mean "you don't have many left"? And no one has said that Wohl was in jail or has been in porn. Ward3001 14:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - comment I SAID I am not parking in this mud-throwing, general immaturity anymore...cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh my god..this debate is actually on some internet page..how embarassing is this...I'm outta here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.205.212.5 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2007 (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.