Talk:Lizzie Grubman/Archives/2012

Old talk

Criminal

I don't know when it got added, but surely there is a better description of her than criminal in the first sentence.

--waffle iron 19:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

It's why she's notable. If she hadn't attempted to murder those people by plowing her SUV into the crowd, she'd just be another New York publicist that you'd never heard of.moving the

I'm removing the "criminal" reference: She committed a crime, she did the time.--Lance6968 08:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of a criminal is someone who has committed a crime. It's the only reason she's notable, so I'm putting it back. If you want to nominate the article for deletion, that would be fine, too.

Deletion

This page needs to be removed: She needs to be notable for more than committing a felony. Wikipedia isn't a crime log. Please consider removing this article, it would never have been placed in a proper encyclopaedia. Please clearly assert Grubman's notability if you want to save this page -- JD 4 Aug 07

Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia and thus is more inclusive. Several other people have removed speedy deletion templates, so I would suggest you use Articles for Deletion. --waffle iron ^talk 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Still no assertion of notability, isn't that a requirement for articles? --JD 4 Aug 07 16:13, 4 August 2007, anonymous IP 212.21.115.158

She received MAJOR media coverage, including multiple mentions in David Letterman's opening monologue... AnonMoos 16:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, David Letterman's monologues - case closed then...

If Dick Assman has an article, why can't Lizzie Grubman? AnonMoos 19:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear what you mean by "no assertion of notability". Are we reading the same article? The first paragraph refers to her as "notorious." The second paragraph describes her as "well known," and quotes a major media outlet describing her as "the most powerful girl of all." It is absolutely impossible to accurately describe this article, in good faith, as not containing assertions of notability. Nandesuka 19:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first sentence says she gained notoriety by committing a "felony crime" (grammar). If there is nothing else that she has gained notoriety for, she shouldn't have an article, but if she's notable for something else (ie a failed tv show) then it should be clearly stated in that first introductory paragraph.

Then I encourage you to merge the second paragraph into the first, rather than making specious arguments that the article has "no assertion of notability." Nandesuka 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a recent AP article begins "Ah, Long Island — land of Amy and Joey, birthplace of the bellicose Baldwin brothers, where Lizzie Grubman plowed her SUV through a nightclub parking lot and Billy Joel slammed three cars into assorted inanimate objects." ... AnonMoos 09:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• KEEP - The mentions of her in mainstream media (NYT 18aug07) make it obvious she is "notably" infamous-notorious.[1] Being famous for a crime, can easily promote a minor celebrity to a more major one, self-reinforcing in US culture -- the basis of so much that is "notable" here. -69.87.201.29 11:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted

I have deleted this page without projedice to a completely new article being recreated due to serious BLP issues. Please remember, everything must have sources when dealing with biographical articles. I am leaving this talk page undeleted so discussion can take place for creating a new article. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you made the previous content completely inaccessible for non-admins, you've therefore zeroed out everybody's previous work on the article, and ensured that making an article which meets your standards will involve much wasted, duplicative, unnecessary, and redundant effort (as opposed to just starting with the core of the previous article and sourcing it and selectively pruning away at possibly unsourceable parts, which would have been much easier for everybody all around). Way to motivate people to improve Wikipedia, dude! AnonMoos 11:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article had no sources whatsoever so shouldn't have been left on wikipedia for any time at all. WP:BLP is probably our most serious policy, everything, especially content which could be considered libellous without backup must be sourced. This article talked about folonies that Grubman had commited, with not a single source to back up the claims. There was nothing salvegable in the article so it go deleted. My advice is find sources, and create a completely new artlce from those sources, as the page is deleted, content from the original article can not be used as it would be an infringement of the GFDL. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It lives! The article is now well sourced. Nick mallory 13:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Comment

I've just started writing this article again. There are lots of sources, from Time Magazine, the New York Times etc. BLP doesn't mean no mention can be made of court cases etc involving living people, it just says they have to be sourced. This is sourced, exhaustively. Nick mallory 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• The problem we have is that we still have an article that may have supposed WP:BLP issues; an article that has already been deleted twice by admins who stubbornly refuse to disclose what these alleged issues are. There's nothing to step yet another admin from jumping and deciding that even this version has WP:BLP issues, and there seems to be nothing that forces and admin to disclose anything more than his excuse for speedy deletion, without providing details. Is the third time a charm? Alansohn 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it's better sourced now (i.e. it has sources) so it will be fine. All biographical articles must be completely sourced, as I've explained numerous times, if they aren't they get deleted. It may be a good idea to read and understand WP:BLP before you question deletions in the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The sources here now are the same sources that had been in the article and had been added earlier. I have read WP:BLP many times and clearly understand what it says. Above and beyond your failure to have your perceived WP:BLP issues addressed without deleting the article, your stubborn refusal to disclose what your WP:BLP issues were with the original article creates the trap that good faith efforts to undo the damage caused by your deletion will be deleted yet again for falling afoul of the same undisclosed issues. If you continue to withhold this information, there is nothing stopping you -- let alone some other admin -- from deleting this article, for a third (or fourth, or fifth) time. Alansohn 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • When I deleted the article it was in this state. How many sources does it have in? one that doesn't even represent the conviction. The articles sourced now, but at the time, it wasn't so went against BLP. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If slightly re-editing (and providing sources for) the previous material in the article has now satisfied your concerns, then why in the name of heaven did you repeatedly insist before that there was no possible way in hell that slightly re-editing (and providing sources for) the previous material in the article could satisfy your concerns?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? AnonMoos 14:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it wasn't getting restored due to it not having sources. I said previously, I wasn't happy with it being there for even 5 minutes in the state it was in. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for nothing... AnonMoos 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, at least we have a well sourced article now that isn't going to get us sued. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Howza about this for dealing with the imaginary problem: Close the AfD as a "keep' (respecting consensus), delete the one sentence that you arbitrarily determined exposed Wikipedia to lawsuits, and notify other editors that in your opinion the statement was unsourced and exposed Wikipedia to lawsuits. Heck, you could even have searched for a source for the claim. If one's intentions were to respect consensus and improve Wikipedia, it's amazing how easily your perceived issue could have been addressed. Your failure to disclose the issue when exercising your absolute power to delete the article, justifying your actions by stating that "The article as it currently stands has no sources and with it's content, is a very serious BLP violation. Sorry. but BLP trumps notability." Taking the simplest effort to explain WHAT the supposed WP:BLP issue was would have gone along way to minimizing the damage to Wikipedia that was created through your actions. Alansohn 15:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• • "the damage to Wikipedia..." I would argue that Wikipedia will become much more respectable when articles about accident prone publicists are removed. No damage whatsoever has resulted from the removal of this page, I'm amazed this hasn't been picked up by other sensible moderators and administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.115.158 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be re-deleted

This article should be re-deleted per WP:BLP1E, and I am sorry that I just barely missed the most recent deletion discussion. This is a total WP:COATRACK article and nothing more. Burntsauce 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, she is notable for more than one event. Her hit and run incident and the MTV television program. --William Graham ^talk 17:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be little more than a coatrack; why would we have articles people involved in car crashes? This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Shell ^babelfish 19:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• As a publicist alone, she's notable. Unanimous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman was that she's notable. Yet we still get those coming up with excuses for why the article should be deleted. As the proverb goes, "It's time to @#%& or get off the pot": If you think the article violates Wikipedia policy, start a second AfD. I look forward to participating. Alansohn 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• "As a publicist alone, she's notable" --- That is a totally ludicrous basis for notability. There are thousands of publicists in the world, lets make entries for all of them! This is such a useless article, a failed TV show and a car accident. This isn't encyclopedia material, its just a gossip mag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.21.115.158 (talk) 22:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • The deletion argument might have been somewhat reasonable before PoweR Girls, but it's clearly not true after. That had nothing to do with the hit and run incident, it was about her agency, and she had the lead role. A person who has a TV series made about her -- not about any incident, about her career -- is notable, no if, ands, or buts. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course she's notable. She's had numerous articles in major publications about herself, a TV series featuring her and her company and a widely publicised court case. BLP doesn't mean embarrassing things get airbrushed out of history. Put it up for AfD if you think it should be deleted (again). Nick mallory 12:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)