Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Nestler

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 delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Colleen Nestler

Colleen Nestler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:BLP1E. It's more about a scandal than the actual person. Smitty (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Looks like this is a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. The subject is only notable for one event (getting the restraining order), which received a small flurry of publicity in Dec 2005 and Jan 2006. I did find one other passing mention to it in 2007 in a Forbes article on frivolous court cases. So, this wouldn't qualify for an article on the event instead of the person either, per WP:NOT#NEWS. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman. The woman involved is not notable, but the case itself is very notable, and is cited in both popular news as well as legal publications. Owen× ☎ 21:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. The article makes clear that the central event is notable, 3d party coverage, etc. The only question is whether the main article should be about the person or the case, with the other as a redirect. That should be discusswed on the article talk page, not here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete . As an article on her, it is an obvious violation of BLP. She is not notable, merely unfortunate. DGG (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman for the reasons given by owenxDave (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete the article on the person per WP:BLP1E, and do not create an article on the event per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• rename and edit per above logic from Nestler, Wolfowitz. Dispute is clearly notable especially the commentary about it. Nestler less so. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or rename. I'd say "rename" at minimum per BLP1E, but the dispute seems so trivial - and of no lasting significance or legal precedent - that I'd prefer deletion. WP:NOT a tabloid. The incident is so trivial it isn't even mentioned in David Letterman. Rd232 ^talk 13:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  The story was actually mentioned in the David Letterman article for most of its life, until in October 2007 a well-intentioned but--in my opinion--misguided group of editors decided to remove most non-TV related facts about him, and about other TV personalities, as "trivia". In any case, the notability of this case has nothing to do with Ms. Nestler or Mr. Letterman. It was a watershed event in US domestic violence law. The widespread and long-lasting coverage by media alone should place it above the WP:NOT#NEWS criterion, and as I mentioned above, BLP1E doesn't apply as this article is about a court case, not the person after which this article was incorrectly named. Owen× ☎ 15:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

  So it's been out of the Letterman article for 18 months. What evidence is there that "It was a watershed event in US domestic violence law."? Rd232 ^talk 17:48, 18 April 2009 (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.