Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Dow

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 of the debate was Delete. I count 11 delete/merge, 4 keeps. Based on the raw count, I could have been convinced to go either way. After all, three minor acting credits and a poorly selling book is three credits and one book more than I have to my name! Still, the article itself reads so much like a gossip column, I don't think it's worth keeping. One could make the argument that we aim to be a superset of every encyclopedia that has ever been published, and thus the IMDB article should mean it's good enough for us, but I think it would be a hard sell to convince me that IMDB is an encyclopedia. --RoySmith 14:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Dow

I know I worked to make this page normal, but this isn't a very notable person. She has 3 very minor credits as an actress, one book that was hardly a best-seller, and is mostly known for her relationship problems with her daughter, Jennifer Aniston. I don't think she's quite notable and the Aniston Vs. Dow conflict can be briefly summarized on Aniston's page. There are a lot of other celebrity relatives who are not really well-known for any other reason than maybe a small media-reported conflict with their celebrity offspring, i.e. Aaron Carter's mother Jane Spaulding Carter, Sandra Dee's stage mother, etc.

Delete per nomination.Vulturell 09:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this lady has just enough notability to stay, especially if she has a mention on the Jennifer Aniston page. JHMM13 09:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is mentioned on the page but Jane Spaulding Carter (who has no article) is mention on Aaron Carter's page, etc and they are notable/not notable for the same reasons - they both wrote books about their offsprings and had a little media coverage on their feuds.Vulturell 09:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough to stay[1]. PJM 14:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here that couldn't be on the Aniston page; being related to notable people does not make you notable. Peyna 17:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but only just. I nearly voted keep until I saw the IMDB article - two also-ran film parts in nearly 40 years does not cut it for me. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jennifer Aniston. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete on the same lines of Just zis Guy's reasoning. Jacqui ^★ 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; not all that notable, but just barely notable enough for the fairly low bar I think the site should have. *Dan T.* 04:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Just zis Guy, you know? Stifle 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Put whatever is usable in Jennifer Aniston. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 01:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough credible third-party sources to make it encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. Arniep 03:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although she isn't that well-known, you could probably call her a Z-list celebrity, and she has had some 'famous moments', so I think she just makes it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cypriot stud (talk • contribs)
Delete per SlimVirgin --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 03:03, 2 December 2005 (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.