Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light

Ellie Light

Ellie Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable violation of wp:coatrack and wp:not#news. Hairhorn (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'll wait to see how this plays out but for now it's a likely (but not speedy) delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some nutter writing letters isn't news. Probably no need to wait, even.--170.170.59.139 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is more relevant to the phenomenon of this pseudonym. It relates to the letter writing campaign not the gaining notability of the name "Ellie Light" This page should not be deleted it represents an article describing somewhat of a notable hoax which is allowedWirelessmc (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is similar to the one for Greg Packer and is getting major media coverage. The Cleveland Plain Dealer and Politico have both run articles on her, including Ms. Light's responses to reporters' questions. So I think it's notable. The question is, is she notable. Under WP:NOTNEWS, a bio on Ms. Light is not warranted. However, there is reason to have a "Ellie Light Controversy" article or some such, if coverage continues. There is no reason to believe that this violates WP:COATRACK. I suggest keeping the article but moving it. Wellspring (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Wellspring. A biographical entry probably isn't warranted, if Ellie Light is even a real person's identity. However, the controversy itself is notable, and will likely grow in the near term. (It reminds me of Glenn Greenwald's sockpuppetry, mentions of which mysteriously disappear every time they're added to the two previously linked articles.) Nathanm mn (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Some nutter writing letter"??? You think it's really a woman who just happens to have houses all over the country? If it's a White House dirty trick, as seems likely, it's certainly notable. Kauffner (talk) 08:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree that it is notable. Even if it should be renamed so it's not a biographical entry, it should be kept.99.67.181.254 (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
• Why the rush to delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.135.64 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep Seems like adequate sourcing and speculation of high-level political shenanigans. Note that the article has now been mentioned in a reliable source. Ronnotel (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• The multiple, local addresses and similar language qualify "Ellie Light" as a strongly-suspected hoax. The numerous citations by the press qualify it as notable. The article attempts to describe a hoax, something specifically permitted in wp:del#reason. It should remain. 70.169.167.93 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)