Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shera Bechard

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shera Bechard

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ideally, I would've WP:BLARd to Michael_Cohen_(lawyer)#Payment_to_Shera_Bechard. But atleast 1 editor doesn't think so. And, is apparently shy of discussion. There's no significant coverage on her, except one single event. So WP:PSEUDO applies. — hako9 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. — hako9 (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree there is not enough coverage of her life to create a full biography, absent the one incident, fails GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm sorry, I didn't see your message on the talk page. After becoming more thoroughly familiar with wikipedia's policies, I agree to the deletion, after which I will add new information to Michael's article. Shall we make a new redirect to Michael's article? Or will the old one remain?--Julietacr (talk) 11:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Michael Cohen (lawyer)#Payment_to_Shera_Bechard is a better target. The old redirect was List_of_people_in_Playboy_2010–2020#2010. The latter one will limit your scope to add any information, since that article is just a list. — hako9 (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Requesting any uninvolved editor or any admin to premature close this per WP:NACD with result as redirect, unless ofcourse they have a differing opinion. — hako9 (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also significant national coverage of her relationship with Hugh Heffner, in the National Post long before the rumoured affair with Donald Trump. There's also some coverage of her porn career. Certainly not notable for a single event - her German and Spanish Wikipedia articles were first written years before that event. Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You call this significant coverage? Did you read the article you cited above? It talks about US immigration and visas. Read past the headline. Regarding other coverage, I guess we take your word for it and close the discussion? This is a pseudo-biography. Her past relationships and non-existent porn career is fluff material. — hako9 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It talks about such immigration and Visas - it also discusses her movie career. If you cut out all the paragraphs strictly about bureaucracy or other people, there's still significant coverage, in my opinion. There's also coverage of her long before she met Heffner - though not in the biggest national papers. I haven't looked much about how foreign career at all - but I'd have thought that if she's one of the many women that Trump had raped, knocked up, or make a huge pay-off too, that would have lead to some significant coverage as well. Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There must be sources. Believe you me. — hako9 (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here - I'm sure you saw the same local and regional coverage that I did when you did your BEFORE. You did do a BEFORE with Proquest, right? I'm not sure if that stuff is significant - but it doesn't matter, because the National Post one is, and so are some of the recent coverage relating to her being paid off by Trump's staff. I'm missing something about your objections here. Nfitz (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage except the one event. The National Post article is not significant coverage. All the results on proquest are passing mentions or related to the single event in mid 2018, or from unreliable tabloid sources. So stop wasting everyone's time or produce sources. — hako9 (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she is notable for more than one event.

I read the WP:BLP1E guidance the same was as WP:NOTBLP1E explains it - i.e. we don't need significant coverage for more than one event, we just need some coverage, a small amount of coverage meets the criteria CT55555(talk) 05:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all the three articles you cite above are related to the one single event in mid 2018, relating to her relationship and lawsuit against Elliott Broidy, covered in sufficient detail under Broidy's article and under Cohen's article. Quoting from WP:PSEUDO, In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family background, hobbies and employment, etc. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media. When in doubt, concentrate on the notable event, rather than invading privacy for the sake of padding out an unnecessary biography. The "extraneous biographical material" in this article is the tabloidy celeb gossip, which fails the inclusion criteria. — hako9 (talk) 10:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article source an unconnected event https://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/playboy-model-is-granted-genius-us-visa-26870612.html CT55555(talk) 14:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As stated above, the topic passes WP:BASIC because it has clear significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CT55555 and FormalDude Andre🚐 23:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep based on coverage in relation to multiple points of the subject's life. BD2412 T 21:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, she's got sporadic coverage about the hush money payment to the Trump staffer, [1], about this level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep It may be possible to improve further. I see no real reason to delete GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per CT55555's comment above, the article's subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC and the article's subject is known for more than a single event, so a redirect to another article covering any single event would not be appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2022 (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.