Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell

Kari Ferrell

Yes, there is media coverage, but not everything the tabloids write about is encyclopedic. She has not done anything notable, just tricked some men for money and stole some things. There is some media attention because she is attractive, and everyone likes to make fun of hipsters. Apoc2400 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I would say keep and wait. There are a few court cases coming up and there will be more press coverage then when more facts are laid out. Parkerparked (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how many newspapers waste space on it, it still comes back to WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is the very in-depth subject of of secondary sources that are independent of the subject, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. That's why I created the article. Not even currently included in the article is this multi-paged extremely in-depth article about this topic in The New York Observer. And it was just "one event," but a still-ongoing series of events. The nom's "There is some media attention because she is attractive, and everyone likes to make fun of hipsters" is a completely subjective personal "analysis" that has nothing to do with our notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is encyclopedic is somewhat subjective. That is why the general notability guideline is just guideline. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a strong belief amongst many, if not most, editors that notability is not subjective and that placing personal opinions on notability-canceling "reasons" that there has been secondary coverage ("There is some media attention because she is attractive, and everyone likes to make fun of hipsters") is not a proper substitute for our actual notability guidelines.--Oakshade (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she's notable enough to be kept. There are other more questionable articles out there than this when it comes to her type. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. The above argument fails per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because the project is riddled with BLP nightmares does not mean we should add to the pile. لenna vecia 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making a big deal out of small-scale crimes. I apply BLP rather narrowly, not expansively, but I think it does apply here. DGG (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. If there are other more questionable articles out there, that is a clear justification to bring those here, not a justification to keep this. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Everyking (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She definately notable, i just did a image search and there over 88000 photos of her. I am looking at them closely Hasmme Vogel (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]