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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Nettles[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability. According to the article she seems to have been the tragic love interest of the notorious Marshall Applewhite of the Heavens Gate cult. However there does not seem to be much known about her besides that. The information in the article could be included in his article, or in the article on the group. Wolfview (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article's subject satisfies WP:NOTE, as it has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". This includes: Discussion in over 200 results, in search of books, over 60 results, in news archives search, over 40 results, in search of scholarly academic articles, 29 results, in search of LexisNexis, 105 results, in search of NewsBank, and 37 results, in search of Westlaw. -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I checked out some of those and they seem to be saying what's in the article already, which is her importance to Applewhite. I don't see anything about her being notable on her own. Wolfview (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Significant discussion is given in multiple of the WP:RS secondary sources listed above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two references, though I have to go to class right now. I'll get back to working on it later, but it seems quite clear to me that the subject is notable, as being the reason for the creation of the cult in the first place. Silver seren^C 22:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between being "important" and being "notable" (In WPspeak). President Obama's liver is extremely important, but WP is probably not going to have an article on it. Also what information is going to be in this article that will not also be in Applewhite's?Wolfview (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't compare a person to someone's liver, even if that liver belongs to the President. If you look at Applewhite's article, you'd see that there really isn't all that much about Nettles in it...at all. There's really only a few sentences and then the article continues to discuss things that Applewhite did, as that article is about him. The extended information about Nettles in this article (and the other information that can be added to it) would not fit being merged into the article about Applewhite, as it would give undue weight to information not about the subject. The notability of Nettles is established from a myriad of sources, you can't deny that. Silver seren^C 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've rewritten the entire article and formatted it. Silver seren^C 18:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article is much better. I still favor delete because she is only notable in relation to Applewhite and the group. The information in this article would have to be repeated in both of the other articles. Why make readers read the same information multiple times? Also if the others had not commited mass suicide 12 years later no one would be talking about Nettles. She wasn't notable during her life. Wolfview (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent rewrite. The article as it stands now appears to show the requisite amount of coverage to meet WP:BIO. If consensus is against keeping this, at the very least it should be merged into the group's article. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While her early death means that she was not directly involved in the events that made the cult of which she was a co-founder notorious, she was nonetheless instrumental in its creation. It's a frivolous comparison, but I think of the Marx Brothers; Gummo left show business before the brothers became movie stars, but he's still notable... Robertissimo (talk) 06:42, 23 September 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.