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. Nakon 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patsy Presley[edit]

Patsy Presley (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)

Article subject falls into WP:INHERITED category; little to no media attention and secondary sources. The woman was Elvis Presley's cousin, Priscilla Presley's "shopping buddy", and Elvis' one-time secretary who answered his fan mail for a short period of time. That's pretty much it. That said, there's nothing that makes this woman notable enough by Wikipedia standards that she merits a BLP article. Fails WP:GNG, article's existence is a waste of Wikipedia space. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - there are some significant coverage in the media and secondary sources about this Presley. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources are in the article right now. There were also Ladies Home Journal and TV Guide articles about her. She was interviewed for a documentary. More sources can be found under "Patsy Presley Geranen". Bearian (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, the first two links you provided show nothing. The third only shows she was interviewed about Elvis in a documentary. That's hardly something that meets general notability guidelines. The last link goes to imdb (not a reliable source) and only shows the same as the third link. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added two more sources including one from CNN and another from a news website in the UK. Those two along with the Ladies Home Journal, TV Guide mentioned by Bearian above are more than sufficient to show coverage across numerous WP:RS to meet WP:GNG and cross the threshold of notability. (adding signature here with timestamp of my vote found in history section - 01:48, March 31, 2015‎ WordSeventeen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,031 bytes) (+311)‎ ) WordSeventeen (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source helps this individual meet notability guidelines. The UK piece is a copy of what's already online that incorrectly refers to Presley as a "collaborator" in a documentary about Elvis Presley. Patsy Presley is quoted in the documentary - one time - and talked about not being able to be present for the taping of his special from Hawaii. That's it. The CNN transcript source only denotes what she said in the documentary. In the same CNN Larry King transcript, Priscilla Presley mentions Presley's name. Patsy Presley was not a "Collaborator" on the documentary, she has a momentary appearance. The addition of neither of these sources helps Patsy Presley meet WP:GNG. I maintain that the individual is not notable per Wikipedia guidelines and the article should be deleted. At the most, the article should be redirected to the Elvis Presley article or maybe the Memphis Mafia article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We simply do not agree. What proof and source do you have that makes you think, "The UK piece is a copy of what's already online that incorrectly refers to Presley as a "collaborator" in a documentary about Elvis Presley" Collaboration does not mean the person was "in" the documentary a certain number of minutes. It means she helped with it, or assisted with the making of the documentary. "col·lab·o·ra·tion 1. the action of working with someone to produce or create something." from here [1] I maintain that the article subject is notable per Wikipedia guidelines and the article should be definitely be kept. WordSeventeen (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WordSeventeen: I'm well aware of what collaboration means. Look up the documentary -- not commentary or hype about the documentary -- but the documentary itself. Look in the credits. Do you see anything, anywhere that lists Patsy Presley as one of the writers, producers, directors -- anything in the way of production? People who "collaborate" in the way of media (be it movies, television, music) are involved in the production and/or writing. Patsy Presley isn't listed as someone doing any of those things for the documentary/TV movie "Elvis by the Presleys". So, if you want to maintain she was a "collaborator", you really need to have proof of that other than someone saying she was a collaborator. That's the Wikipedia way, after all. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So your 'proof' that she was not a collaborator is the credits where you did not see her name, but in a WP:RS CNN reference [2] and The Express UK news site [3] both say she is. I think Wikipedia after all goes by WP:RS not what you personally did not see at the end of the documentary. What is that termed as "negative original research? I will just leave my keep vote as is. With 17 and counting references in the article just now, the article subject meets WP:GNG and notability standards. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. The proof that she was a collaborator would be that her name appears in the credits showing she was a collaborator. Your "proof" is that Priscilla Presley incorrectly credits Patsy Presley with being a collaborator. But, oh, wait -- yeah, I'm sure you're right. Because when a celebrity says something and it's "sourced" that makes it true! How stupid of me! (yes, that was sarcasm)

I'm afraid that if you're going to maintain Patsy Presley was an actual collaborator (someone who contributed to writing the script, producing the documentary, directed, worked in casting, was a cinematographer, was a producer, or even a grip, etc.) you will need to come up with some real proof (other than a celebrity using a term she obviously doesn't know the meaning of) that gives this non-notable individual such a title and position. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Mentioning along with other highly notable entity is questionable notability. Although her individual career remains on going and she is notable for that, has received the amount of coverage that is required for establishing the WP:GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: In both the version that existed when this article was nominated for deletion: [4] and the current version as I am writing: [5], this is a total YAWN. Have all the sources you can fight over: this reads like something on Ancestry.com. Even if the sources per se are valid links and readable, this person is not notable. Per nominator's WP:INHERITED. This would always be a very weak article. (Like, so what?) Oh, and: Jerry Schilling describes Presley as "A quiet, centered girl who proved that the Presley good looks translated very well to the female form: isn't this sexist and not the least bit related to notability? Lame. Fylbecatulous talk 12:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notability is not inherited. This person has not done a single noteworthy thing in her life, and is only discussed in sources because of who she answered fan mail for and for who she was "shopping buddies" with. This is precisely what WP:NOTINHERITED is intended to protect the project from. Tarc (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Tarc, User:Fylbecatulous and common sense, yes she was mentioned in some books/articles about Elvis, but still there is no credible claim of notability whatsoever outside being a cousin/secretary/friend of him. Furthermore, most of the coverage looks very trivial to me. Cavarrone 12:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Winkelvi's thorough destroying of the sources up there. Tigraan (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. If you take away the famous cousin, this person becomes a non-notable secretary. Winkelvi sums it up perfectly (although per WP:NOTPAPER, I wouldn't have used the "waste of space" argument). Tavix  Talk  02:27, 24 April 2015 (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.