Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Douglas

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Douglas

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

Unreferenced BLP since mid-2009; the article associates the subject with a number of companies, but doesn't really do a lot in terms of establishing why she is notable, outside of marriage to another potentially notable person. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - With citations. Quick news search establishes WP:N. How exactly does one have $53,000 per week in personal expenses? - PlainSight (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into George David. Per GRuban, found additional sources, however all were either in context of divorce or attending some social event with her husband. - PlainSight (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - With or without citations. Not Notable and Unsourced and Not relevant as an encyclopedic article- --89.194.32.75 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is quite a bit of news coverage (Times, New York Magazine ...) but it's only about one thing, her ongoing divorce strife. It's apparently been ongoing since 2001 or so. :-P That's a person known for only one event, and though she's not really a low profile individual (the other requirement of deletion per BLP1E, and which is why this is only a weak recommendation), information on that is better put into the article on George David, who is apparently known for more than that. If someone can find reasonable coverage of her as an executive or a countess or even a socialite, I'll change to a keep per WP:HEY. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Famous by association doesn't count. The news coverage isn't about her in and of itself, but rather about the divorce case.—DMCer™ 17:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be known only for who she married and their divorce. There is no indication she is independently notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:45, 22 April 2010 (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.