Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson
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
— User:Dreadstar, 17:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:WAX||WP:OSE||WP:BLP (Wikipedia:Notability)