Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Lindström

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Severe BLP issues. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charlotte Lindström

Charlotte Lindström (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. If it made any difference, Lindström is variously described as a model and a socialite but the news articles I scanned fail to expand on that in any detail. This is a sad case of a pretty girl[1] having gotten caught up in a crime which may well be newsworthy, but is hardly encyclopaedic content. —Moondyne click! 08:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ——Moondyne click! 08:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- per nom. Newsworthy, yes. Encyclopedic? No. -- Longhair\talk 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep as the person deleting this article the last time didnt do it because of notability. But because of a dispute with the creator of the page. I also think this article deserves to be kept, their has been so many incidents with articles up for deletion and then a few weeks later someone have has to re-create the article again. Just watch Shannon Matthews for example. I Vote Keep anyhow i am against deleting worthy articles.--NilleX (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a weak keep anyhow as Lindström is a celebrity and a model. She is a known name in australina press. And all majopr newspapers in australia and sweden has covered this case. If this gets deleted all criminal cases should be as Lindström is more famous and notable than all the others. as she has a modelling career, the other have "just been murdered",.--NilleX (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Hardly a particularly notable case - suggest a merge to an Australian or Swedish crime topic as it isn't likely to become longer than a stub in reality...? (Perhaps talk to someone like Australian Crime Project for a suitable article?)Akitora (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete subject is not notable and unencyclopedic. Jack1956 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I came across this article in the Newpages pile yesterday and placed a notability tag on it because I noticed it had been deleted before and wasn't sure she met the guidelines. I agree that this is unlikely to be expanded beyond its current length and that the notability of the subject is questionable. There is perhaps a case for merging this into an appropriate article (if there is one), otherwise it should be deleted. Paul20070 (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Lindstrom was notable as a model and socialite before being charged with any crime. Without her earlier notability her crime would not have attracted international attention; enough to generate articles at fr:Charlotte Lindström and sv:Charlotte Lindström. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Reading this it seems to me that the model/socialite angle was overplayed. Certainly not notable for her work as a promotions model. Neutral now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete but if notability with RS as a Model or Socialite prior to the events in the article then I'll change to keep Gnangarra 13:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and start again - if someone wants to write an article based on reliable sources discussing her as a socialite or model - or not. As it stands, the article is straightforward BLP1E material: notable for one event, and not a happy one. I guess that means per Gnangarra, but at least you know I worked it out on my own :-) Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As i know she was a celebrity before this incident Lindström has been in numerous newspapers and on australian television before and after this crime. And i agree with Nille, what makes Schapelle Corby for example more notable? Atleast Lindström has a modelling career or for example Meredith Kercher? None of the two mentioned names are more notable than miss Lindström. --SamNelly (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Corby has been the subject of international diplomacy and was also initially facing a death sentence. I cannot see case for Kercher, but just because other stuff exists is a poor argument. Could you provide some links to some of the "numerous newspapers" which reported on Lindström before she was charged? As Mattinbgn said above, it appears that her "socialite" status may be slightly exaggerated—she worked as a waitress for two years after arriving in Sydney. —Moondyne click! 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • She is both a model but known also as a socialite who has been in the press many times before, and also after her arrest as you can find out. She has also been seen and is a regular face in the upper class areas in Sydney. For example in Sweden the case of Schapelle Corby is totally unknown but the Lindström case generates many articles in different newspapers. She is still in my own opinion more notable than atleast Meredith Kercher and Kercher has a article. The case has also generated many articles in many different aussie newspapers and television as i said earlier. She also has been noticed on Youtube and have three videos of this case at the moment with overall 30.000 people watching those combined.--SamNelly (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Has added a link with some of the news coverage from australian media,and thats just one of many channels. The media both in australia and sweden has obviously given this case alot of coverage that wouldnt have happened if she wasnt a notable model and socialite. That gives her notability in itself.--SamNelly (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • The youtube video page includes a comment "please vote Keep on her article on english wikipedia as it is up for deletion. its 50/50 at the moment...". For the poster's information, canvassing, particularly from external sites is a very bad idea and most likely to be counterproductive. Meanwhile, I've been googling and cannot find anything of substance regarding her being notable before she was charged. —Moondyne click! 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually the crime itself would get media coverage in Australia irregardless of the person and because she is Swedish would rate coverage in Sweden as would an Australian overseas get coverage locally, this only confirms WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. What is required is sourcing prior to the event to show she was notable for other reason. Gnangarra 08:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this article has some interesting history.

There's at least three other intersecting accounts but unfortunately I don't have the time to write it all up. I do get the distinct aroma of smelly socks though. —Moondyne click! 09:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Another comment This person is likely to be entering a witness protection program on her release. Perpetual articles on the wikipedia with links to youtube videos will not help that. I think this should be speedy deleted and salted per WP:BLP concerns. —Moondyne click! 09:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:BLP1E seems to apply here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
  • Comment Perhaps it is the crime itself rather than Lindstrom that should have an article, but only if there is something significant about the events. Hiring a hitman to dispose of witnesses is, I'm afraid to say, not uncommon. With reference to the Kercher case, I think the thing that made it notable was its unusual nature, but note here that the article concerns the case rather than the persons involved. Paul20070 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Their is obviously a No Concensus discussion here. The votes are all over the place.--213.65.40.11 (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Firstly, we don't vote, we discuss; Secondly if we did vote, this would be a delete based on the comments above if you counted them; thirdly, I refer to my comments above regarding sockpuppetry and canvassing; fourthly, as a single purpose account, your opinion carries less weight than an established user; and fifthly, why on earth do you care so much about this? I'm mystified. —Moondyne click! 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete disregarding all the suspected sockpuppet accounts above, the article is simply non notable. Dreamspy (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.