Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson
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
— User:Dreadstar, 02:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO||WP:BIO (Wikipedia:Notability)