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.
It is never easy to close such a contested discussion, especially when closing towards an unfavored outcome. I close this discussion not to make enemies, but because I believe it is in the best interest of this encyclopedia. On that I may be wrong, but I will qualify my decision to the best of my ability.
When a living person is tied so closely to one single event, that neutral and encyclopedic content cannot be generated from reliable sources, such a person is not fit for inclusion. Reciprocally, a subject who is recognized for mainly one, well-documented event, but has also been covered by reliable sources in one or more unrelated events, is fit for inclusion. Such a person may not be notable for their involvement in one major event, or for their involvement in a number of minor events. However, if the sum of all such events equates to reliable sourcing that allows for verifiable and neutral coverage, then the subject is notable and an independent article is justified.
Such is the case, by my furthest consideration, of Michaele Salahi. The existence of dependable sourcing outside of 2009 White House gatecrash incident thus serves to undermine arguments of WP:BLP1E. Therefore, Michaele Salahi, as a major participant in a historical event, and as a person with adequate coverage outside of that event, is, by my most earnest conclusion, notable. The result was keep. My best regards to all, Arbitrarily0(talk) 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable woman. Only warrants an entry in the Gate-crashing article. Doesn't warrant her own entry. Note – the Tareq Salahi article is also up for deletion as it is equally non-notable. Tovojolo (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. THESE PEOPLE PROBABLY PUT THEMSELVES INTO WIKIPEDIA!!! TALK ABOUT I NEED GOOGLE HITS!!!. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN —208.217.164.134 (talk) [reply]
Keep. She clearly is the participant in a major news event and a matter of national security. She's the subject of a large number of Google searches and likely a large number of Wiki searches. She has some reason for being here as a model, anyway. Most of all, why is this an issue? Are the electrons getting more expensive? This article was created because there is interest. She is clearly not a "average" person with no notable achievements. There is plenty of space, so leave the article here. -- --35.9.42.152 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If ever there was a person who was "famous" for 15 minutes, this is it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete. I don't think the incident itself is notable enough for an article, let alone the couple themselves. -Glenfarclas (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a merger proposal on the article, proposing a merger with Tareq Salahi. Also, the tone of Richard C. Weaver, article on an earlier White House gatecrasher, is very silly and could arguably use attention. Шизомби (talk) 05:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tareq Salahi to form something like 2009 White House 'gatecrash' incident. Like Шизомби said, I proposed the merge earlier (The AFD notice was missing on the article, but I've since added it). IP 220.x let me know about the AFD and suggested the name. I agree that both Salahis are not notable themselves, but I think an average couple getting past White House security is notable, and it's certainly been mentioned in notable media. If merging isn't agreed on, the info should be added to the White House intruders article rather than Gate-crashing. Liquidluck (talk) 05:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Information Nice to see someone reads my posts! Sorry Liquidluck, I feel these aren't quite an "average couple". These seem more 'society' people and actually seem to be "famous for being famous". I followed the research links on the AfD page (above) and found these articles (below). It seems very possible (to be verified) that the other guests at least weren't surprised to see them at the White House, See link #2 in particular. This seems to be the circles they mix with.
[1] “For Some, Polo Match Was a Dud”, The Washington Post, By Tammi Marcoullier, Sunday, May 27, 2007-Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[2] “Michelle Obama’s Hair!”(?) BISNOW –the SCENE, Australian Embassy for the Americas Polo Cup kick off party -Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[3] “Land Rover America's Polo Cup Team Plays in USPA World Snow Polo Championships, Aspen, Colorado”, International Business Times, Posted 26 December 2008 @ 05:23 pm ET-Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[4] “More wife watch”, The Washington Times, By Stephanie Green and Elizabeth Glover, Page 1, Sep 28, 2009- Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)
[5] “Rumored 'Real Housewife of D.C.' Talks Life and Love in the Nation's Capital”, DIGITAL CITY, By Lauren Lamb, Oct 16th 2009 9:08AM - Retrieved 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge. As I said at the Merge Proposal, I have already (about 12 Hours ago) put basic details of the incident in the Gate-crashing article. The two Salahi articles could certainly be merged easily. Then we could wait and see if this blows up into something bigger, ie if they are charged. Or if it becomes a real security incident, they become the basis of a new article as mentioned by Liquidluck. I did not know there was a White-House Intruder article! It could certainly use expansion. BTW the Salahis are already on the list there! Seem that is the first place they appeared on Wikipedia!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
INFO It's getting interesting. Tareq has been a naughty boy! Sorry, NPOV right?. I allege on the basis of verifiable sources, he has been a 'naughty' boy. See [6]--220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The incident itself is definitely notable -- Glenfarclas is quite wrong. Two uninvited people gained access to one of the most secure facilities in the world. Pretty notable for sure. The balloon boy hoax has it's own article, so why wouldn't this incident qualify? It's widely reported in the media and there are oodles of secondary sources on it. As for this article, she is notable in her own right as evidenced by multiple media reports on her prior to this incident. It appears that she is a well-known Virgina socialite that is under consideration for inclusion in a D.C. based reality show. She has been covered in the Washingtonian and Washington life magazines. Seems to meet WP:NOT pretty clearly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.67.83 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I put the incident in roughly the same category as the 2009 Obama White House menu typos incident. The political spin-cycle-of-the-moment may get wide press, but isn't always of general notability. So I stand by my view that this incident probably is not notable, and the individual members of the couple definitely aren't. YMMV, of course. -Glenfarclas (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like the Salahis, as people I find them utterly detestable, but then again plenty of detestable people have biographical pages. Michaele Salahi should be notable just for her modeling career and considering that the winery dispute, the polo cup, and the *ahem* "charity" had all generated plenty of column inches in various news outlets before the Bravo TV show and the White House incident the biography is worth keeping. Deleting a bio just because someone is an a--hole runs contrary to the point of this site existing. And this page is important for people to use to discover why this couple managed to scam their way into the White House. --Scooteristi (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Scooteristi[reply]
Don't Merge. If the context of their lives were solely the gate-crashing incident then yes, they should be merged, but in the context of his notorious family legal disputes, his polo career, and the fact that he won't be a "housewife" on the Bravo show they should be kept separate. --Scooteristi (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Scooteristi[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Having several minor claims to notability does not simply add up to notability. If the couple (particularly Michaele) proceeds to have their own reality show that changes the situation, but as of yet that is not the case. --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the answer is to not rush to hasty judgment because this case is likely to play out in the media for a while increasing the fame and notability of these two douchebags. Again, being a douchebags isn't a reason to delete a page, if it were there are a few thousand people whose pages I'd love to delete.--Scooteristi (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Scooteristi[reply]
Keep. Like it or not, "Michaele Salahi" generates about 280,000 Google hits. Yes, they are unhappy people who love media attention. No, they are not just a one time 15 minutes of fame. If deleted, where will people go for information when the name comes up? Charles Merriam (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with possible resurrection as a section of the inevitable Real Housewives of D.C. article). Subject is only notable for the single event. As this controversy may be linked to the upcoming Real Housewives show (reports indicate that a Bravo crew may have been in on the incident), then the best solution may be to merge this info there when the show's article is created. caknuck°needs to be running more often 20:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep it. Single event or not, Wikipedia was the first place I went in order to find out who these folks were. They are public news enough at this point to warrant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.64.136 (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:BLP1E; we really must stop creating an article on every event or person who gets 15 minutes worth of fame. Wikipedia is not a news service; that is what Wikinews is for. HonouraryMix (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charles Merriam and Scooteristi --Banzoo (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is precisely the sort of situation for which we have BLP1E. If she happens to do something that garners further attention then we can look at having an article. This has nothing to do with whatever you think of the person in question. Quantpole (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Intense dislike of publicity sluts like this, but they're just gaining notoriety by the minute, and there's no reason to delete an article on people with this much publicity notability. It's not deletable. Maybe merge as husband and wife, but I'm betting on two articles and individual notability. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Conrad Kilroy's proposal above. The event got significant media coverage, but this does not mean that the individuals themselves are noteworthy. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Conrad Kilroy's proposal, the articles should be merged to an article regarding the breach of security. Gage (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. These individuals are not at all notable outside this one breach of security. JEN9841 (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is exactly what she and her husband want. more publicity. this is single issue article. 174.16.174.183 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's some kind of publicity worm virus. It's affecting other Polo related articles (the sport, not the clothing line). It is sure to spread to fashion from there. Lock down any Redskins articles please! What other shows are on Bravo? This thing is dangerous. GavinSimmons (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable - if being headline news around the world for a week doesn't deserve a wikipedia page I don't know what is. Like others wikipedia is where I came when I wanted to know who she is. Jhksk2 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article about the incident, per continuing coverage such as in the NYT. Sandstein 02:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article 2009 White House 'gatecrash' incident based on Gate-crashing, as many suggested its creation, and it would have inevitably been created at one point. It was also given undue weight and suffered from recentism in the article Gate-crashing. Cenarium (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is notable because it highlights a major failure of the U.S. Secret Service. The article will obviously be added to, revised and improved as the story develops. This couple accomplished something noteworthy in the age of terrorism.
Merge both Tareq and Michaele into one event article, keeping the individual entries as redirects, ideally to sub-headers within the combined article. Because of WP:BLP1E and the fact that the articles are nearly identical. The incident was definitely notable, so no reason for deleting altogether. gidonb (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They're not notable besides the fact that they breached security and should surely face criminal charges. Let's not feed into this couple's desire to have media attention and/or a reality show. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too soon guys, if she manages to get out of the trouble she is in then may be, but this is no different then running in front of a bus with a bikini on to get attention right now. If you want her in put her under Secret Service page. This smells because the page is 65& Washington Post. I'll keep bitching until we figure out a process to include Examiner.com in referral section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.86.21 (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — 70.180.86.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
COMMENT For anyone who has missed, it this debate and a quoted comment itself, have made it onto another website here 24breakingnews.com [7]--220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the winner is....Scooteristi whose comment on this page of 17:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC) was deemed quotable. Congratulations! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2009 White House gatecrash incident. Salahi does not merit her own article (see WP:BLP1E) but her name is now a plausible redirect and some of the information in this article could definitely be merged into the aforementioned article, especially considering the fact that it's a stub at the moment. I would like to note that Salahi has not yet been selected for that reality show, and as such the gatecrash incident is her only possible claim to notability. Again, fifteen minutes of fame doesn't result in notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , redirect and mention in the Gate article. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There are 3 basic reasons to MergeorDelete being given: she is not famous, simply experiencing her 15 minutes of fame; she is desperately looking for attention; and she is only notable for one single event. These 3 reasons are mainly subjective and emotion-driven. A strong dislike or annoyance with the Salahis should not interfere with this process, but it is. She was notable before the White House incident, she was a member of the U.S. Delegation to India for the America's Polo Cup and her husband announced India's participation in the cup at the Indian Embassy in September. Michaele was interviewed by the CBS Early Show 2 months ago, both have been covered by major publications prior to the incident, and both are involved with heated legal issues, as well as allegations against them of major charity fraud. There is an article on the Balloon Boy and his family was much, much less notable than the Salahis prior to the Heene's hoax (their notability exclusive to YouTube and WifeSwap), and the Balloon Boy incident itself was much less note-worthy than the successful breach of security at the White House by two white-collar socialites. It's fortunate for Wikipedia that the majority of people who use this website don't venture onto these discussion pages where you see the subjectiveness that has pervaded Wiki. We don't even know if they're going to be charged with anything yet and there's already a discussion to delete? One more comment: Many claim that making articles of major news stories like this is not encyclopedic. Stop comparing Wikipedia to Britannica. Deleting this article is nothing more than an effort of some annoyed people to remove a legitimate encyclopedic entry because they don't want to grant this couple their 16th minute of fame. They will get their 16th minute, and their 17th and 18th; this isn't going away. -- AJ24 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you check, Ballon Boy redirects to Ballon boy hoax. We do not have an article on the boy, Richard Heene, or anyone else in the family. However, I googled further after reading your comment, and I still think she and her husband should be merged together. Everything that makes them notable ocurred while they were married. And, as you said, their most major incident was the White House gatecrash- so I don't see why they shouldn't be merged into that article. However, you mentioned some great information beyond the White House gatecrash, so if you can link me to a few sources, I'd be happy to bring this article up to scruff myself. Liqudluck✽talk 18:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into article about event. Honestly, how many WP:BLP1E articles need to be created? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirectto2009 White House gatecrash incident, at least until there is sufficient information on her in reliable sources outside the context of that incident. It does not appear to be disputed that the incident itself is notable, so outright deletion should not be considered an option. Merger there should not be taken as an excuse to prune all information about her as an individual, given that (as with the parents who perpetrated the Balloon Boy hoax) their bios as hopeful media/reality TV stars provide helpful context for understanding this incident and their motivations. WP:BLP1E might need to be reworked given that it is often used as a blunt club to support deletion of anyone covered in reliable sources because of one event, regardless of whether that event only occurred because of that person. When the event itself is indisputably notable, those who perpetrated it at minimum merit coverage in an article on that incident. The oft-ignored statement at WP:BLP1E is: "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate." I would also support merger of the Salahis two articles into one on both of them, maintained separate from the incident article, but at this stage merger with the incident article is probably best. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for keep do exist. Some are quoting the Wikipedia rule of keeping the event and not the person. There is some reason to abide by this rule. However, I read in the Wall Street Journal Europe an article about the Salahi's and how they are a new breed of internet reality TV (minor) celebrities. Since they are covered in a reliable source about them and not an article about the incident with a passing mention about them, then that may be the beginnings of an article. Also in the article were brief mentions of other people like them, such as Balloon Boy's father. In short, there should be a discussion about how what we want in Wikipedia because this is yet another debate with both sides quoting Wikipedia rules without resolving the basic issue that keeps coming up weekly. For the purposes of vote, my vote is abstain as long as these points are discussed. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to be consistent with similar or more serious White House intrusions. We have three articles covering this, and only on the other incidents in this list. As far as I can tell they haven't stolen military hardware, attempted to assassinate the president, or tried to destroy the White House itself, so if anything this should have one article, and those should have two or three. WFCforLife (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirectto2009 White House gatecrash incident. My support for that incident article is a weak keep at best, but one thing is clear: a separate article for Tareq Salahi and Michaele is completely unnecessary, especially when they are both known for one event that already has its own article in the first place. What a mess this one is going to be... — HunterKahn(c) 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If the individual articles should be kept, I would also strongly argue that they be combined into something like Tareq and Michaele Salahi, rather than kept as two. As both are notable for the same things, it would be unnecessarily redundant to have one for both. — HunterKahn(c) 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to propagate charlatans or unsavory behavior in one's quest to be famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evnucci (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't have many biographies at all if we deleted them based on the bad conduct of the subjects. postdlf (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People are looking up her biography. If people look, it needs to be here. We aren't saying she is a lesbian or a thief, we just need to write her biography. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But since she's only known for one event, that information would be available to our readers if this were changed to a redirect, right? — HunterKahn(c) 05:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHer otherwise unremarkable life does not justify her 15 minutes of fame extend to such a worthy and important record of history contained within this site. Please delete for the sake of humankind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.64.146 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. Her five seconds of fame are over. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE with the hubby's article as there seem to be reliable sources documenting their notoriety prior to this brouhaha.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While grok.se's stats are interesting, see WP:POPULARPAGE. Those stats might be used to make the argument that people would hope to find information on her on Wikipedia (which is not in itself an argument that there should be), those stats can't be used to make the argument that it is better to have a page for her alone, rather than have one for her and her husband combined, her on her husband's page, or her and her husband on the WH 2009 gatecrashing incident page, or them to be mentioned on the WH intruder or gatecrashing pages. Шизомби (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Taku (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for her "accomplishment", article will contain information not found in the gatecrashing incident. --Vizcarra (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not news and this person will not be notable for more than 15 minutes. Jonathunder (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Add her info to that of her husband and put it into an article about the incident, then redirect his and her articles to the incident. WP:BLP1E. Cocytus[»talk«] 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Yet another recent news event from non-notable attention-seekers. Reywas92Talk 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rename to the incident, as described by other editors. Significant event due to lapse of Secret Service. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirectto2009 White House gatecrash incident. See here for my longer comment on that article. All three of these articles should have been considered together and it's probably advisable for the same admin to close all of them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People are citing WP:BLP1E, but note that it says "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Thus far she's been the subject of non-stop media coverage for a week, and with ongoing investigations and a likely Congressional hearing, the coverage is likely to continue for weeks to come. Obviously, we can't predict the future, but we can afford to wait and see how the story unfolds before deciding whether to merge into the event page. Binarybits (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article exists only because of a temporary news item that will be forgotten in a year, if not in a few weeks.Johndowning (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteorMerge into article about incident; her "modeling career" and the couple's legal woes are not noteworthy - plenty of people have similar problems, should we wiki them, too? How about the person with the Guinness World Record for most lawsuits while we're at it? And to those referring to the excessive press coverage as reasons to Keep, the coverage is of the incident, not of their personal lives, which are completely non-notable. —GodhevalTCH 18:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article but Merge with her husbands, the couple and their incidents are very notable, even here in Australia, where they're been talked of on the news. AnOicheGhealai (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely WP:RECENTISM, will be totally forgotten in a matter of weeks (OK, maybe months). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a crystal ball you've got there? Binarybits (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, I don't need a crystal ball to know that in historical context this is a complete non-event! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto2009 White House gatecrashing incident. No notability to speak of aside from this incident--virtually everything in the article can be repeated in the gatecrashing article. Blueboy96 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because she has been involved in some private litigation, which does not make anyone notable on its own, and made up some stories about her life, which does not make anyone notable on its own, also does not make her notable prior to the alleged gate-crashing. Let's not forget that this, at present, is only an accusation. To me, the content meant to support notability really has been stretched. Some of the sources in the article defy the concept of reliability: poptower.com, gossiprocks.com, askmissa.com? Eek. If this results in keep or merge for some reason, someone needs to consult WP:BLP. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The arguments for "keep" seem to apply for the gate-crash incident. Some information here might be important for that article, so it would be best not just to redirect. Otherwise, keeping an article about this person is very uncyclopedic. The person is not notable in any field. The security issues that the incident raises seem to be appropriately covered in the gate-crash article. That is the subject that may merit the status of some historical importance.Maziotis (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP or merge per 35.9.42.152 - These people are notable, as well as notorious. Wikipedia should chronicle their rise... and certain fall. There should be a new category 'ultimate public douchebags who think their $h** doesn't stink' and let them, along with "Spencer and Heidi", headline for 2009. The woman's and her husband's articles can be combined, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moucon (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This is English Wikipedia not American Wikipedia. And this certainly isn't a showbiz blog. This is not even major news outside the USA, compared with more important events which don't have their own articles (because they didn't happen in the USA, presumably). Rapido (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then write the article on the non-US events--as you correctly mention, we need more people working on them. The en WP covers all countries, English-speaking and otherwise, and tries to do it comprehensively. If something is a major news story in one country--any one country, the US,. the UK, Italy, Indonesia -- it's notable for Wikipedia purposes. International notability is not required, but in fact there are some non-US citations here. When we argue for international notability, it's to demonstrate that something is certainly notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice biography for a person that I looked up and was happy to see it here. If it is merged with the gatecrashing article, then most of the biographical stuff will probably be eventually lost. That is like book burning. Book burning is bad. A1234568 (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete These people did this stunt to gain popularity and this article is proof of that. WP is not a tabloid and I see absolutely no long term notability for the that the incident page itself cannot cover. Wikipedia is NOT wikinews! Corpx (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep about one additional NYT story a day focussing on her. I see them elsewhere too, but there are too many to notice. Deleting this is another example of our short-sighted ability to discern what will clearly be historical & make the distinction from routine news coverage. . I agree about getting rid of events only the tabloids report, no matter how often they report them, but the NYT is not a tabloid. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable, as per coverage by reliable sources. Bryan HoppingT 05:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unrelenting coverage in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The gate-crash incident should not be an excuse to talk about this person's childhood, career and family life in an entry that pretends to be an encyclopedic article of a notable individual. Also, a lot of people arguing for "keep" seem to miss the point about a solution that does NOT involve the removal of the information that has been "relentlessly" explored in the mainstream media. I think all that attention and the analysis of security issues does justify the cover of an incident with historical importance, but we can do that through the article of the "gate-crash" incident. The entry for the name of this person, Michaele Salahi, can redirect there. That is the common practice in Wikipedia for cases like this. Otherwise, I haven't yet seen any good argument that can justify reading an encyclopedic article on "Michaele performing with the Washington Redskins", etc.... Please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid#Notability_fallacies. The subsection, "It's in the news", seems particularly important.Maziotis (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as shown at the top of this AfD (via sources from before the gate crashing) she was likely notable, per WP:BIO, before this and clearly is now. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recap: Notable for DC dinner & Redskins events[edit]
As of 3 December 2009, there are now (at least) 2 separate, major-source events concerning Michaele Salahi, so that passes WP notability (no longer WP:BLP1E):
2005 visits with Washington Redskins Cheerleaders Alumni Association (major source: Washington Post, 2009-12-02, "Former Redskins cheerleaders doubt Michaele Salahi...", webpage: WashPost-781).
Consequently, Wikipedia cannot reject the article as a non-notable person, because of those 2 events, separated by 4 years (covered by major reliable sources).
Note to closing admin: This evidence refutes the AfD claim of "Completely non-notable woman" and so the AfD must be rejected. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP notability because of 2 different major-source events, separated by 4 years. Merging with her husband would just duplicate the text in the WP server databases, beyond 15 minutes of fame as "30 units" of WP storage. Keep as separate article, per the requirements outlined within the policy WP:Notability. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Redskins story only exists because of the attention given to the gatecrashing. Do you think the Washington Post (or anyone) would have published this story at all if the bigger story had surfaced? It's still fallout from, and directly related to the One Event. Angryapathy (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Angryapathy: Exactly. Шизомби (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content, merge into one article on couple. No, they don't deserve to be notable, but there's no escaping it; they're the moving figures in a notable event and there's significant independent coverage of them extending beyond the event. BLP1E requires that the subject "otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and it's rather clear that that just isn't going to happen. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2009 (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.
