Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Louise Ellis

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 keep, as the references provided in the references section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Louise Ellis

Karen Louise Ellis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I'm nominating a group of long-standing, well-sourced articles about notorious sex offenders for deletion. The reason is notability - I just don't think these folks are all that notorious anymore. They are scandalous news stories that got a lot of attention at the time but have by and large faded from public memory, except here. They are marginal cases - all get lots of google hits, and consensus may go either way. It's possible that were they deleted, true-crime fans or age-of-consent advocates would rapidly recreate them. But my view is that these articles just don't add a lot of informational value to the encyclopedia. Curious to see which way consensus will go. Dybryd 03:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
*Comment Right! " a short burst of present news coverage" is not necessarily evidence of long-term notability. That is in fact the basis of my nominations! Dybryd 08:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as WP:N has been fulfilled and, as stated before, is not temporary. Burntsauce 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Notability is not temporary, but people may be confused between notability and press coverage. Relevant points from WP:N:
    • This concept [notability] is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".
    • A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
    • "Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable. However, many subjects with such coverage may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually speak to notability when examined.[1] (emphasis added)
    • "Notability is not temporary. Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events.[10] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability." (emphasis added)
--lquilter 17:05, 9 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.