Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Trong

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 23:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Stephanie_Trong

Obvious vanity page User:Corto 19:12, 28 Apr 2005 (unsigned)

• Keep. Perfectly good subject, could use a little cleanup tweak. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Deputy editor of a nationally distributed magazine with nearly 1 million circulation. Hmmm...that would be a keep.--Gene_poole 05:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Gene pool. I'd love the article to be wikified and have a lead before it jumps into her bio, though and I will do that myself if no one beats me to it. Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. So important that the editors of the Jane Magazine article didn't bother to mention her. Gamaliel 08:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• :( Really? I guess I did the rewrite for nothing then... 131.211.210.12 10:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (MacGyverMagic not logged in)#
• Comment. Stephanie Trong has been deputy editor of the magazine since, I think, November 2002. This should of course be in the article on Jane Magazine, but the article there at present is only a stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• We don't even have a separate article on the number two person at General Electric. Deputy Editors don't make the cut for an independent article. Redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • We probably should have an article about the number two at General Electric. One reason I'd want a separate article about a journalist like Trong is that she's done lots of work that doesn't conveniently fall under her time with Jane. I could post ext links to stuff like her interview with Bowie (for Jane) but she's done literally hundreds of interviews, many with famous people, and not all for Jane. I couldn't just shoehorn it into the Jane article, really, it would probably be best to have it under Trong, because when people read one of her interviews, they're reading Trong, not "Jane", whoever that is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Being an deputy editor of a rather non-notable magazine does not make one notable. Long established notable magazines like Time have had dozens of assistant editors and those assistants are still non-notable. Quale 08:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Quale's reason. --Chill Pill Bill 03:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Arcadian 04:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, not relevant, obscure. --Mecanismo 21:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've done a minor rewrite. 131.211.210.12 08:22, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• There is not even an article on 'Jane' Magazine. The article on the founder is a single line. Looks like vanity to me. Corto 13:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The fact that we don't have an article about Jane magazine suggests only that we should have such an article. Obviously this isn't vanity because the person in question is deputy editor of a big-selling national magazine. Amazon ranks it 18th in style and fashion magazines, below Marie Claire but above ELLE. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.