Jump to content

Talk:Michaele Salahi/Archives/2014

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


What Do We Need, And When Do We Need It?

Do we really need to mention that the family has had fights with its neighbors? This is an online encyclopedia, not a tabloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.134.5 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To quote Benjamin Franklin: We need this article like we need a hole in our head.
In my opinion the mention of fights with neighbors is inappropriate. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It's a fact, I don't see why you should go around defending these people. You do much worse regularly.67.241.138.25 (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Vogue

I cannot find a trace of this lady being "featured" in Vogue. Reference, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.152.48 (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

If I were a model and I had had a feature or an advertisement or even just an out and about where my photo was shown in Vogue, I would simply say I had appeared in Vogue. That said there is extreme doubt that Michaele Holt/Salahi had ever been shown in the pages of any magazine or catalog prior to the short-lived D.C. Style in 2006-2007 (I'm waiting for more refutations). Hey I had a full-page pic of myself shown in Business Week. I guess that makes me a model. ;^) scooteristi (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fashion

I think mention should be made of the fashion she wore on the particular occasion at the White House. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it was a lehenga, not a sari. 189.217.221.45 (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

So the AFD for Michaele Salahi resulted in a keep, and it stands to reason the Tareq Salahi AFD will have to end with the same result. Now I think it's time to discuss a possibility that was brought up during both AFDs (but not addressed by the AFD itself), which is merging the two articles into a single article of Tareq and Michaele Salahi (currently a redirect to 2009 White House gatecrash incident). I personally think this is the best course of action if we are going to have a separate article about the Salahis as individuals, as they are notable for the same exact things. And, of course, combined articles like this are not unheard of when two people are connected and notable for the same events; take for example The Coen brothers, Sacco and Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, etc. etc. However, I think it is very important we develop a consensus before we do such a merge, especially since it's a touchy issue. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Merge I agree, it would be appropriate to merge the two articles. After reading both of the articles, I realised that the content is, for the most part, the same. In light of the gatecrash, it seems that most of their future notability will be from the result of their joint actions. Therefore, readers will most likely be more interested in the couple than the individuals, and a merged article would better serve this interest.--WhyteCypress 23:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Whytecypress (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Merge. They have had vastly different media coverage, due to other separate high-profile events:
         - Tareq has the Oasis Winery sale/bankrupcy issues.
         - Tareq has polo and society horse show events.
         - Michaele has Washington Redskins refuted-cheerleader claims.
         - Michaele has Victoria Secret modeling claims.
         - Michaele has videos for TV series The Real Housewives of DC.
    Plus, other issues seem to be surfacing for each. Meanwhile, the 2009 gate-crash article can cover their last-minute refusal to testify at the 03Dec09 security hearing of the U.S. Congress. In U.S. criminal cases, most husband-wife couples are tried and sentenced separately. They've only been married since 2003, so, there is no reason to obscure the separate background events, of either, as a large combined article that will become tagged "too large, consider splitting". Plus, huge articles are difficult to control for libel/hacking, because few people have the patience to read, diff-scan and correct a huge article (as evidenced by the December-2008 massive hacking of "Mobile phone" despite 5,000 people reading the mangled text daily, for 3 weeks). There could be a 3rd combined article as "Tareq and Michaele Salahi" like "Brad and Angelina" or "Bonnie and Clyde". However, keep the bio articles as separate. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think the differences you've pointed out really constitute "vastly different" coverage. The five points you refer to are relatively minor elements of their overall notability; there would never have been an article about these people simply for those points if it weren't for the gate crash incident. (I'd also argue that the Redskins and Victoria Secret claims, which are disputed more and more each day, wouldn't be an item of discussion at all if it weren't for the gatecrashing thing, and this page gives too much attention to them,) The thing that makes them worthy of an article is their role in the gatecrashing and the subsequent fallout, for which they are best known together rather than separate. Plus, applying some WP:COMMON, just take a look at the article as it is now. The entire sections "Gatecrashing & Celebrity Run-Ins", "Other Controversies" and the majority of "Early life" are about the Salahis, not just Michaele; only "Career" focuses largely on her (and almost half of that section focuses entirely too much on the Redskins cheerleader claim). Also, even if they are tried and sentenced separately, it's for the same thing, so there's absolutely no reason to separate them on that point. Finally, if you look at other combined articles, like the ones I've cited above and others, you'll see that articles about two combined people doesn't prohibit you from going into detail about the individuals where it's merited. In other words, a Tareq and Michaele Salahi article could include a bit about Tareq's polo career and Michele's cheerleader claims, and then segue right back into the couple. — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. These people are notable, as the coverage of him and her by realiable sources clearly indicates. They have been described and discussed by every major news outlet from the BBC to the NY times, as individuals. They are two seperate people. There is no reason for them to have one article. Merging two people into one entity is unatural, and should require some overwhelmingly compelling reason for doing so. Should Michelle and Barack have a seperate article about "their couple-hood?" The Salahi's may be a couple, and they may have committed actions as a couple, but they are individuals, with seperate, unique biographies. We cannot somehow strip them of their personhood and merge them into one because it is convienient for WP editors. The actions of these two individuals are having 'international conseqences'. Both of them are extrememly noteworthy. Bryan Hopping T 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge Sure some details, like the lawsuits for non-payment and the gatecrashing will run similar courses for both, but they are two different people with vastly different pasts. My wife gets super ticked off if we receive anything address to Mr. and Mrs. Scooteristi, there is no need here to make the wife subservient to the husband in this case. scooteristi (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Why the heck did the admin close the AFD as keep?? There was overwhelming majority to merge or delete, with 56 people, and only 22 people saying keep. There was clearly consensus not to keep as a seaparate article. Reywas92Talk 00:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge per the consensus to do so at the AfD's, as acknowledged by the more experienced of the closing admins. WFCforLife (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge as a first step towards merging into 2009 White House gatecrash incident#The crashers. Both articles are BLP nightmares. The parts that talk about things unrelated to the one big event use language such as "is rumored to be", "has claimed to be" or advertise a non-notable winery etc. A lot of this useless junk must be removed. An encyclopedia is not part of the Yellow press. Hans Adler 11:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge I have to agree with Hans here. The two articles are BLP nightmares. If we can't merge it directly to 2009 White House gatecrash incident then maybe merging this one to her husband's article is a good first step to accomplish that. This article has so much duplication. I am also curious as to why the AFD closed as keep, I was totally surprised by that. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: As closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michaele Salahi, I understand that my decision has made some confusion and resentment. For that I'm truly sorry. Maybe my close was in error? Maybe my rationale was insufficient? Either way, I'm happy to support a merge to Tareq and Michaele Salahi (note that merge support in the AfD had largely gone towards 2009 White House gatecrash incident). Whatever the case, I'd be greatly appreciative if we could move on from the fact that my closure wasn't necessarily 'correct' (maybe some would even support a deletion review). Thanks all, and my sincere apologies, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, so the Michaele discussion at DRV has ended, and that article has now been merged and redirected to the gatecrash article. I think it's clear from the discussion above that a majority of editors feel there should be some sort of merge, although there were differing opinions on whether it should be merged into a biography article about the couple or merged with the gatecrash article. However, since Michaele now redirects to the gatecrash article, it only makes sense to merge Tareq to that article as well. I've gone ahead and done that now. My hope is that we can all work now to improve that single, strong article, rather than spread ourselves thin with three separate ones! — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(Old) Merge Discussion Moved from Tareq Talk page

  • I like idea of merging both Michaele and Tareq's pages into one on White House 'Gatecrash' Incident-2009. Much cleaner and concise way of handling, because by themselves, they are not notable enough for inclusion. Plus, many of the so-called "facts" about the couple, such as her supposedly having been a Washington Redskins cheerleader, are refuted by other sources (namely the Washington Redskins). These current pages appear to be a PR tactic in tandem with their reality show goals.Myk60640 (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Myk60640
  • 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

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. —Precedingunsigned comment added by 75.176.64.136 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually his father's family is from Pakistan, but I am not sure all this is relevant to this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by78.20.152.48 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

There are people surnamed Salahi in Pakistan but it is not that unusual an Arabic surname it is doubtful that they are not Palestinian 140.247.136.53 (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I dont think this should be deleted, there is a lot of interest in this chap and only wikipedia has the answers —75.14.221.177 02:35, 1 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooteristi (talk • contribs)
  • NOTE: This is an older discussion about merging the biographies with the name of the incident. We are now discussing whether the two biographies should be merged. Please keep new comments on the "Merge Discussion" thread above to avoid splitting this into two conversations. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

DRV Notice

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_6 the close of the AFD is voided and overtutned to no-consensus. There was a strong sense from the DRV discussion that the correct close was to merge but such a recommendation is not binding and falls outside the scope of DRV. Please, however, take this DRV discussion into account when deciding whether a merge is ir not appropriate in the case of this article. Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of mumbo jumbo but the conclusion is that this is a "keep" so someone must not have seen this. I will help out and fix it to make it an article.

Also the Salahis are in the news again, nothing related to that White House thing so it looks like they are celebrities for life, like Paris Hilton. HuhWhatsThis 15 Aug 2010 05:21 UTC

  • I personally am disgusted by these people but I think the time has come to change this from a redirect into a separate article. Unfortunately the TV gods have decided to bestow a TV show on this couple and there is so much coverage of them in the popular media aside from this incident that I just don't see how it cannot be an article. Given the amount of time that has passed I think they have established themselves as more than a one-trick attention grabbing pony. I would note that a number of other "Real Housewives" with outside issues all have separate articles and think that is the correct course here now (see: Bethenny Frankel, LuAnn de Lesseps, Kelly Killoren Bensimon, Danielle Staub). |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michaele_Salahi/Archives/2014&oldid=1142442488"