Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naomi Betts

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Betts

Naomi Betts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Just being a bank robber hardly makes this person "notable" at all - in fact, I have yet to find any substantial reliable sources documenting this person's case (and her name gives only a few hundred Google hits) TML 05:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, per WP:BLP, WP:ATT and WP:N and per: if you can't show a spree like Bonnie and Clyde you are just a criminal... not notable AlfPhotoman 17:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:NOTE and reads like a wanted poster.-- – Dakota 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:ATT. No reason given why this bank robber is any more notorious than any other bank robber. --Charlene 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete . many many criminals are arrested and many are shown on news shows. For Naomi there are no recent news articles .. the world has stopped caring and so should we. per WP:NOT as an indicriminate piece of information - Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:ATT and BIO. - Denny 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. 15 minutes of fame (or infamy) does not make someone notable. At most and only if relevant, I could see the AP article being linked to from the America's Most Wanted article talking about the show leading to arrests. JDoorjam JDiscourse 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete 15 minutes of fame per above. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep. The article is now well referenced and meets the minimal notability guidelines. Speculating on its use to future readers is unnecessary crystal balling. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets the standard requirements, and that's all thats necessary. Further, I think America's 10 most wanted might be considered ipso facto notable. That's the purpose of the show.DGG 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is "notorious" the same as "notable"?  :) Just kidding. I agree. The article now has multiple reliable secondary sources. It should be kept. —Carolfrog 05:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the existence of sources is our best yardstick for notability. — brighterorange (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep On America's Most Wanted makes him notable--Sefringle 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are many people who have been captured directly as a result of AMW that do not have Wikipedia articles. In fact, many of them do not even have news articles about their captures in major news sources. In addition, it appears that the press has all but stopped following her immediately after her 2004 capture, so how many people will remember this 5-10 years from now? TML 04:44, 14 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.