Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yetunde Price

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. — Caknuck 18:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yetunde Price

Yetunde Price (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is not a clear-cut AFD. Yetunde Price meets the letter of WP:BIO: she has been the subject of non-passing mentions in multiple outside coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The problem is that very little of that coverage is actually about her. Most articles are about thedeathofthesisterofVenusandSerenaWilliams. Yetunde Price seems to have very little notability in her own right. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions and in the list of Sports-related deletions. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think that she is fine. What's wrong with her article? Okay, she lacks some notability, but her article contains various good points. If this article is deleted, it will be an unfair deletion. Indefinitely. Meldshal42 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep needs some references, but should be notable if those are provided.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It's a famous murder with tons of news coverage; the fact that the fame stemmed from her family ties, and not independent accomplishments on her part, doesn't change that. Propaniac 18:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now per User:Meldshal42. --Nonstopdrivel 18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and add more sources. As per ↑. --Edtropolis 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's interesting to see what matters here--apparently it's the social connections of the victim. That does affect the press coverage, but I thought we decided that no amount of press coverage could make for lack of intrinsic notability. I thought we also had the principle that notable relatives did not make one notable. But it seems that WP is back to its old self: the WP, the Encyclopedia of the mass media, with just enough other stuff to look respectable. DGG 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not personally familiar with the decision that "no amount of press coverage could make [up] for lack of intrinsic notability", but as far as I know that's not WP policy. And I'm not arguing that notable relatives make one notable; there's a difference between an article about a famous person's sister, and an article about a famous person's sister whose murder received lots of press coverage. Propaniac 14:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was Keep , and the earlier ones removed because they were just murders should have been kept as well. DGG 06:00, 19 June 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.