Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Manhart

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle Manhart

Michelle Manhart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

One of three people in similar circumstances, nothing to indicate that there will be any ongoing notability, the case itself can be covered adequately in women in the military without the problems of giving undue weight to a single incident in her life, which is essentially what this article is about. People get busted in the military from time to time, it sometimes makes the news for a day or two, occasionally the case is noticed for some wider reason, very few of the individuals achieve lasting notability. In the mean time we have an article which focuses on one minor incident in the subject's life, which is the only thing that has ever really been subject of external attention, and that seems to me to violate WP:BLP Guy (Help!) 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dismas|(talk) 12:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Made national news in US and Western Europe, you can find articles in CNN.com, she was discussed on Anderson Cooper 360°, etc. Notability established as far as I am concerned. Hektor 12:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with Hektor on this. The subject of the article was the subject of news stories on two continents, many newspapers, at least one very notable magazine, television news shows, etc. Just because the other two women don't have articles isn't a reason to delete this one. Wikipedia isn't finished, we're still writing articles. To use that as an argument isn't logical. Dismas|(talk) 12:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, if you want to delete this article because the subject is only notable, according to you because of "the only thing that has ever really been subject of external attention", then please go ahead and put the Monica Lewinsky article up for deletion. She's only notable for one event. Everything after that was as a direct consequence of that one session of oral sex. You can also nominate Shawn Hornbeck since the only thing that he's notable for is being abducted, sodomized, and then found. The fact is that these people made the (inter)national news and are therefore notable. I don't mean to sound like I'm ranting... Just trying to make a point. Dismas|(talk) 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Loads of coverage and commentary. I added some to the article, here are more: National Ledger Fox News MSNBC ... --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Definately Keep. This "event" garnered international attention. The reason because the two earlier cases haven't gotten an article is because they didn't get this amount of attention and still date from a time when the internet coverage was minimal and information scarce. -- user:fdewaele, 26 March 2007: 16:50.
  • Keep: plenty of press about this, to me that satisfies notability. Someone doesn't have to have 'continuing notability' to be in Wikipedia; lots of people are famous or infamous for one single action. This is a rather minor degree of such, to be sure, but enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I would be extremely interested in an explanation of how being on the cover of a major international magazine with a circulation of millions, being the subject of commentary nationwide and on the national newswires, and being forced to resign from the military under fire can in any way imaginable be described as a "minor incident in the subject's life." RGTraynor 18:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: a related discussion concerning a purported image of this individual is here. RJASE1 Talk 18:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, reliable secondary sources; this incident made national news. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Per everyone else; plus, she seems notable to me. Acalamari 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep . "A single incident in her life" seems to be underplaying it considerably, and she obvious does not come under BLP. DGG
  • Keep per above. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:50, 27 March 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.