This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article in the June 11 issue of the Financial Times (which is a reliable source) says "The approach has worked well for Mr Georgiopoulos personally – he claims a net worth of $2bn." [1]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes and Fortune are not the only RS that exist. Furthermore it is irrelevant if a fact is true or not. It only matters if it is cited by a RS. And your request for someone to provide a non registration link is unreasonable. Online cites are NOT required per wikipedia guidelines. . Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two issues here: 1) Do we have reliable source(s) that the guy is a billionaire. That answer is yes. The argument that because it is self reported makes it invalid is not a valid argument and is neutralized by just saying " Kara Young is married to Peter Georgiopolos a self-reported billionaire". So that argument that its just a "claim" holds no water with me or Wiki policy in my opinion. 2) The second argument; that facts about her husband are off topic, has some validity in my opinion. I'm on the fence on that one. I would not be opposed to the phrase "self-reported billionaire" being in the article, nor would I oppose it being left out of the article. Quite frankly it does not add or subtract from the article in any substantial way and I wonder why its such a point of contention here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this info from the lead as it gives it too much weight IMHO (I was the one that added it). It would be good to know what happened after the arrest. Was there a conviction? deportation? conviction? Or were the charges dropped? Here's what WP:BLPCRIME has to say: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted." Any comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of RS articles about this incident. [[2]] is similar to the one just removed. Also her Facebook page mentions this arrest, so I doubt it is a bone of contention with the subject. Furtherore, the arrest ties into the subjects notability. Im in favor of keeping it in. An arrest is not a conviction. Mayr it could be moved down from the lede so not to give it undue weight? Fasttimes68 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fasttimes, I think we are in agreement. Its notable for the article but having it in the lead gives it too much weight. Thanks for participating in the discussion. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]