Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir

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: Notability established by multiple, independant, reliable sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir

Rebekka Gudleifsdóttir (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on every person in the world who has gone to court over something. This person is not notable, and there are not claims of notability. My speed tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here Corvus cornix 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Highly non-notable and a bit contrived too. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment as creator Third party coverage makes things notable. Correct, not every court case is notable, but ones covered in the BBC and the Guardian are notable. Notability isn't subjective, its bestowed by other trusted sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
So every court case covered by the BBC and the Guardian are notable? British prejudice showing, I see. Can I say that every court case covered by NBC or CBS is notable? Corvus cornix 23:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No, just the opposite! Your showing USA based bias. All you Americans do that. Wikipedia needs more coverage of the rest of the world. I hope that every court case covered by at least three media outlets in the USA would be covered. That way Wikipedia is useful and extensive. If a topic reaches the point where it is covered by the top media, its inherently notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is to be useful and extensive, I would agree to an extent.... but it's not meant to be all-inclusive -- see WP:NOT for a list of things that Wikipedia is not. You are right that this case was covered by the top media; however, I'm not 100% certain of its encyclopedic merit. I at least changed to a "weak keep" vote just because of the presence of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
When citing WP:NOT, please be specific. Its like saying its "somewhere in the bible" without quoting a chapter and verse. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and "All you Americans do that" counts as a personal attack. If I were you, I'd refrain from the attack-type comments. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It can't be a personal attack, its attacking a nation of people, including myself, not an individual. Its more of a broad national caricature. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Still, it's considered impolite to make broad generalizations like that. Granted, User:Corvus cornix made a broad generalization too, but two wrongs don't make a right. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
What broad generalization did I make? I was only parroting back what Mr. Norton said. Corvus cornix 01:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
My bad. Sorry about that. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 05:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not only impolite but wrong and prejudicial and does nothing to enhance the discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. WP is not a soapbox for airing personal grievances against a group of people. Substitute "all you Americans do that" for "all you Jews do that" and see how far you'll get. Don't do it again because it won't be tolerated. The Parsnip! 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep as per comment by creator (BBC, Guardian). JJL 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why should the opinions of Icelanders have more weight than others? --DeLarge 09:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. She may be Icelandic, but Flickr is owned by Yahoo!, and the result of a court case will have wide-ranging implications. Horologium talk - contrib 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Lawsuits over copyright infringement are an every-day thing and hardly notable as such. The same could be said about disputes over censorship in online communities. However the media works in mysterius ways, they don't report on all matters like this but two big and separate media outlets did cover this story, which makes it somewhat notable. But maybe a better way to deal with this dispute on Wikipedia would be in a criticism section in the Flickr article? --Bjarki 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"Upgrading" to a "normal keep" because of prior WSJ coverage, three large media outlets is certainly enough to establish notability. Notability isn't subjective and all that... --Bjarki 17:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of notability. If you take the Flickr part out of the story, we just learn that she's a photographer. If there's not much more to say about her as a photographer, I do not see the notability. That her copyrights were infringed is sad but that happens everyday to many people and does not establish notability in my view and it is not her achievement. The third party sources just report about that copyright issue. Being the confirmed victim of a crime like that does not constitute notability, even if reported about. 2 - External links are just a MySpace page and the Flickr page. Probably thousands of people who post their own works there have pages on these two sites, which does not establish notability for every one of them. 3 - The article is about the photographer and her notability as a photographer needs to be proven and sourced and that is not the case. No notability established for the subject and in my view the equation "photos posted on MySpace + photos were stolen + press reported about theft = photographer must be notable" does not work out.doxTxob \ talk 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You did see that the Guardian profile predates the more recent controversy, yes? Ditto for her WSJ mention. So she's not being covered just as some random crime victim. William Pietri 01:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You are confused between "external links" and "references". One sources the material, the other is for convenience. Wikipedians don't determine notability, the external sources do, and all the info comes from the references. "If you take the Flickr part out of the story". True, if you take X out of any story, whats left. If that guy didn't write the best selling book, or that band get a number one hit, would you be writing about them? Thats why notability shouldn't be subjective, and should be bestowed by reliable media outlets. Let them decide for us what is notable. Sometime you make history by just refusing to sit in the back of the bus. Small events can cascade into larger things. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The notability, however, should be determined by something the subject of the article has achieved, not something that has happened to the subject of the article, that would be coincidence. Information about people who become famous by accident, in my opinion, is considered triva and not notable enough for an encyclopedia. In this article no achievements are mentioned but coincidences that could happen to everyone who shares files on a file-sharing website. They are sourced, just not notable. doxTxob \ talk 00:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thats never been a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. We have lots on kidnap victims such as Elizabeth Smart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. She has been covered by reliable sources prior to this incident, and "The Wall Street Journal recently profiled her as a member of the 'New Media Power List'". Seems like the article could be verifiable, encyclopedic in tone, interesting, and useful. William Pietri 01:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As already mentioned, appeared on the WSJ new-media power list and is the most popular photographer on Flickr,[1] has been the plaintiff in a court case which itself has had extensive coverage at a national level,[2][3] and has been the subject of at least one profile in a national newspaper (note: her, not the aforementioned court case).[4] Any one of these in isolation is probably not sufficient for inclusion, but all together? Passes WP:BIO's inclusion criteria with room to spare. --DeLarge 09:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Subject seems somewhat notable based on news coverage. As for whether she'll remain notable remains to be seen. The Parsnip! 18:49, 21 May 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.