Deletion of Mimi Macpherson

Comment: clearly fails ; and I completely agree with Jimbo that Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy|WP:BLP#Presumptino in favor of privacy applies here; and we should definitely avoid further vicitimization of the subject, especially considering that the notability here "stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" and per  #Family
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:BIO)

Comment: being a "celebrity" does '''not''' confer |Notability, it's the same thing as being "famous", or "popular", which are not primary criteria needed in order to meet the requirements of .  As for being a 'noted environmentalist', yes she's done some excellent work, but there is a very high bar that must be met in order to meet WP Notability requirements, as can be seen by Environmentalist#Notable environmentalists|this list of Notable environmentalists.  (Since so many on this page have invoked / comparisons, I might as well join in. :)  The awards, while nice, are not notable themselves, neither are the sources of those awards.  And the TV/radio appearances are also of insufficient notablity.  All of these ''combined'' do not confer sufficient notability for us to have an article on the subject; what pushes it is the famous sister and now the brouhaha over the sex-tape, both of which go against  as to conferring notability.  Even if one believes these do provide sufficient notability, I say we still err on the side of "do no harm" and delete this article.  Why do we need it?  It's not encylopedic, if we take away the titillating, tabloid aspects of the content, there's nothing to base an article on
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:WAX||WP:OSE||WP:BLP)

Comment: Being the relative of someone famous can often result in notability - see Barack Obama, Sr. which is mainly based on Dreams from my Father. Nobody would have heard of this man if his son had not assumed the presidency. This not a case of  - like it or not, deserved or not, there are multiple secondary sources about multiple events which have Macpherson as their primary subject. Also, it's been a few years now since the height of her fame - most of the news hits probably predate Gnews
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: virtually all the references either associate the subject with her sister, or mention the sex-tape or the bankruptcy, which may give the subject some ''notoriety'', but not |notability.  The article draws from the sister's notability, while feeding into further Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization|BLP:Victimization of the subject. The subject is not notable per , which states: "''The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."1 Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.''"  All the sources are just fluff, nothing significant, interesting or unusual that’s worthy of notice beyond the fact that she has a famous sister.  Sure, she may appear in multiple reliable sources, but '''none''' of those appearances are '''notable''' per .  Not even the http://www.womensnetwork.com.au/page.cfm?pageCode=about Women's Network Australia “Australian Business Woman of the Year” and Cosmo's "Australia's top 30 Businesswoman" awards provide her with sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article, if we can even source those outside her own self-published website claim.   The article's sources merely support non-notable trivia that isn’t worthy of notice in an encyclopedia, it’s not significant or unusual enough to be recorded in an encyclopedia.  She may be “famous” or “popular” in Australia, but she isn’t |Notable and the article should be deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO)