Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Lafave

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 keep. John254 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debra Lafave

Debra Lafave (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another sex offender I'm nominating for deletion over notability concerns. Of the group I've nominating tonight, Lafave has by far the best claim to notability. I have heard her name outside Wikipedia (unlike my other nominations), her beauty kept her face on TV for some time, she has been parodied in South Park (although the episode isn't solely about her and I don't think it names her - the story combines a number of scandals then current). I even had the vague feeling that there might have been a TV movie about her, but I checked and there wasn't. So again, she is notable only for a single not-especially-unusual crime, and I don't think getting your face in the tabloids for a week or so is really notability in an encyclopedic sense.

One last note: this group of nominations is all of women. That's just because I had a list of women! What got me thinking about it was a vote to delete the article of a man charged with a similar crime. I don't have a point to make about gender, just one about the fleeting nature of tabloid fame! Dybryd 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is not temporary. Although this woman is only known for this one particular crime the amount of national attention she received lead her name to be a closely associated with the criminal act as a whole. Obviously I'm not saying all of your AFDs should be a keep vote, but this one in particular stands out to me as one that if an encyclopedia of sex offenders were to be published, there would certainly be an article about her in it. Not only did she get coverage for the crime, but she sparked the national debate about the double-standards of her beauty vs. the crime in how society treats offenders. This is one of those rare cross-media stories that (unfortunately) results in notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchwoodwho (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Per what Kintetsubuffalo said. Saruhon 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The WP:N is not temporary, as stated. Burntsauce 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy, Strong Keep. Nom is going through a bunch of criminals and nominating them all. However, the problem here is that even in his nomination with this one, he points out that this one was parodied by South Park. Smashville 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  Being parodied by a tv show that regularly hits on current news topics is not particularly good evidence of notability, IMO. --lquilter 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is definitely not temporary. The fact, the arrest, even the appeals made the INTERNATIONAL news (the story was covered here in Greece)Sokime 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It does seem that the subject is inherently notable, although for reasons which are unpleasant and/or undesirable. The nomination sets out the claim to notability rather well; kudos to the nominator. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
• Comment. Regarding Notability on this article, the article itself does not contain any reasons for notability. However, there is potential for such material to exist, such as "long term consequences". What effect did her acts impose upon society? Etc. Etc. KyuuA4 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm on the fence about this one, since it has achieved more longlasting recognition -- or at least, so far as we can tell at this point. Suggest that it be revisited in a few years. (No, notability is not temporary, but historical hindsight can aid in more accurate assessments. Of necessity, anything which is current and temporal can't be fully-assessed for notability; it can just be predicted with greater or lesser accuracy.) --lquilter 19:01, 11 October 2007 (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.