Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Klein

Add links
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. I wrote "Keep", but I suppose I mean "moot" more than anything else. The page has been moved to "Bus monitor bullying video" since this nomination was opened. While that isn't the best title for the page, it is abundantly clear that no consensus in this discussion could be found for deleting that page. Closing this discussion without prejudice to a future AFD or RM discussion. NW (Talk) 03:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Klein[edit]

Karen Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know this will be a controversial nomination, but here it goes anyway. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and WP:CRYSTAL (for those who argue that she will become an important figure in anti-bullying efforts). This news broke less than 24 hours ago. Wikipedia is not a news site. Give it some time, people. SheepNotGoats [User talk:SheepNotGoats|talk]]) 16:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I didn't add this article because it's news. I added it because she's notable and the event that happened to her is notable. Just because it's covered all over the news doesn't mean Klein doesn't deserve her own article. She's just like Rudy Eugene and other notable people that have been covered in the news recently, only she's in the news for a different reason. Soulboost (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — fails WP:BLP1E. Yes, this might be covered by many news agencies, however the biography is not notable enough to have an article. -- Luke (Talk) 17:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe renaming would be better because it is likely that event will likely become notable in the future. Maybe renaming the article and adding a section to discuss the subject of the event would be good. -- Luke (Talk) 23:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - maybe not the bio, but the event is certainly notable as it's been covered by NBC, CNN, CBS, etc. Soulboost (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe move the page to Making The Bus Monitor Cry, but I would still keep the page Soulboost (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Informative and nicely referenced article linked from the front page of Google News. No other place has such a good summary of events. --Pmsyyz (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:ITSUSEFUL before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it's true that she is only notable for a single event, the amount of coverage and the number of people viewing the video, and the amount of money raised online, make it clear that this is likely to be one of those events that will be discussed for a long time, and will likely become the basis for new suggested policies, educational programs, and perhaps even legislation. In that sense, it's a bit like the Rodney King case, which was indisputably worthy of an article, or the Phoebe Prince case. DLC (talk) 10:20 pm, Today (UTC+4.5)
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E and (re: "will likely become...", WP:CRYSTAL as well) before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Normally I just feel like these should be deleted right away, but people did take the time to dig up information for a knee-jerk deletion to take it all away. I recommend waiting a week or two to see if she's just the flavor of the week, or if this actually has long term merit. I don't feel that getting picked up by the mainstream media is necessarily grounds for permanent enshrinement into the Wikipedian consciousness either. (which was my argument for deletion for what's-her-name in that contraception debate) Sarysa (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sick and tired of barnstared wikipedia admins deciding social consciousness merits no inclusion.dmode (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A regular editor, not an admin, nominated this for deletion. The vast majority of participants in this deletion discussion are not admins. So please stop castigating admins in this deletion discussion, when they have participated very little towards affecting its course. --MuZemike 22:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete textbook WP:BLP1E. If we're still talking about this a year from now, create an article for.the event.
    • I note that there is only one sentence in this article that contains actual biographical information about the woman. Isn't there some other "List of ..." article this can be merged to? Zad68 22:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about a 1-sentence entry for the event at: List_of_Internet_phenomena#Videos Zad68 14:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Striking out my !vote as the target article has been modified so significantly away from what this AFD was originally written for that my original !vote and comments have been rendered moot. I don't feel like !voting on what the article has become now. Zad68 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its not about the person but the event, and the internet phenomenon of a viral video that got ample news coverage, and resulted in a large amount of money raised for the woman. If necessary you can rename the article. Dream Focus 22:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is notable and deserves to be seen by others, I seriously have no idea why one would even give thought to deletion of this article -  Octavannus-Caelestis 23:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read it yourself: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, "Tank Man" should be deleted. Get on it. Amynewyork4248 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Get on it!" Ha ha ha ha! Wow, facetiousness! I am truly humbled. Except Tank Man doesn't fit BLP1E's don't-have-an-article criteria, so your statement is meaningless. Have any comments that match the subject at hand to actual policy and guidelines? EEng (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is only temporarily notable, and Wikipedia is not a news site. For example, it's already off the front of Google's news page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.120.102 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still linked from Google News when not logged in, first story in U.S. section. --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So is Help! Should I Wait Until My Dog Dies Before Marrying My Boyfriend? Perhaps you should start an article. EEng (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not notable at all? I guess CNN, CBS, MSNBC, People Magazine, Fox News, Huff Post, Washington Post, USA Today and over $400k raised in less than 48 hours just don't establish notability anymore. Soulboost (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read it yourself: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, if at least for the moment. Very notable. Currently being covered by thousands of sources internationally. Very viral story. Also noteworthy is the amount of money raised for her in a single day. Sources are making it clear that the half-million USD fund is substantial, notable, and newsworthy. As the story itself seems more notable than the person, a renaming seems logical. Dmarquard (talk)
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read WP:BLP1E before commenting further. EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid wasting more of your fellow editors' time, please read it yourself: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Move to article on event, not person. Talk about BLP1E! EEng (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read it? "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting WP:BIO1E instead of WP:BLP1E, which controls. But thank you for playing our game; we have some lovely parting gifts for you. EEng (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is hardly supported by BIO1E's advice that "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Anyway, BLP1E controls here, not BIO1E, so instead of a mistaken argument based on BIO1E can you make a mistaken argument based on BLP1E? EEng (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your responses, EENg. Do you understand the difference between an article about a person and an article about an event? The latter is clearly what is called for and what an early reading of concensus is calling for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my careless comments -- sorry -- there had been so many simple keeps (instead of move/merge, which makes sense) that I overlooked the and rename in the later keep and rename entries (I think simply saying move or rename would be a little less confusing). EEng (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Clearly notable by this point. There's really no debate here. Also, EEng, please watch your tone in here. Your snide and sarcastic comments towards other Wikipedians are in violation of WP:CIVIL. Ironically, they also constitute bullying, which is something Karen Klein would like to see no more of. Shortbus30 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — Shortbus30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
With one or two exceptions the editors I engaged less than smilingly had enough experience to know (or so that they should have known) that e.g. listing the networks that covered the story (in some otherwise unspecified way) is hardly a notability argument. One particular editor's reduplicated misquoting of BLP1E was particularly vexatious, though I did overreact. However, I deny that any of this constitutes bullying -- these people are all capable of defendeing themselves, ideally by substituting applicable for nonapplicable arguments. EEng (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
EEng You're not helping your case here by using big words and obfuscating the concerns voiced over your snide remarks. Regardless of how others here edit this page, you are responsible for your own tone, which is - at times - decidedly condescending, unnecessary, and ancillary to the discussion at hand. Also, no one here is responsible for "defending themselves," as no one else is supposed to be attacking them. Defend their ideas? Yes, that is expected. Defend themselves? No. DorkKnight (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dying to know -- in condemning "big words and obfuscating," are you are engaging in concious self-parody? Nonetheless, to help you I've struck out some of the bigger words below and substituted smaller ones with fewer syllables.
I'm also puzzled by your objection to what you call my "tone...ancillary to the discussion at hand." Since ancillary refers to something in necessary or supportive association with something else, I suspect you actually meant e.g. extraneous. You might reduce the hazard of malapropism in your compositionbe less likely to put your foot in your mouth if you took your own advice (above) to avoid big words.
Since I called for people to defend "themselves" by "substituting applicable for nonapplicable arguments," it's clear that it was their conclusions, not themselves personally, that they would actually be defending. This is an example of metonymy, a big word you can look up in a reference on rhetoric techniques for argument and persuasion.
EEng (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already. We get it. Some of their word choices are questionable. But your attempts at being witty aren't helping things either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "2012 Greece, NY School Bus Bullying Incident," which removes any and all violations of WP:BLP1E. This entry does not violate WP:CRYSTAL because the event is highly verified, and is not predicated on any future speculation. It also does not violate WP:NOTNEWS, as it is not first-hand news journalism, but rather a summary of events and facts in other journalistic publications. Also, this clearly cannot be considered "routine news reporting" as an event which touches millions of people around the world in less than three days can by no means be considered "routine." Furthermore, as the news media moves on from this event to other newsworthy items, the information here will eventually be the only available source of truth for the event, which I believe is one of the primary goals of Wikipedia - preserving information. Keep in mind the nation's persistent (not fleeting) attention towards the subject of bullying and the numerous lives which have been cut-short because of it. I also strongly encourage user EEng to refrain from snarky and snide comments directed towards other users as this is in violation of the above cited guideline WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia discussions are a place to share opinions and ideas, not demonstrate how clever and demeaning one can be towards others.
One more problem, EEng, is your own user page. You incorrectly translate the French idiom: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." as "Wait for coins to drop, then please make your selection." I cannot tell if this is a joke, or you are just ignorant. The actual closest English translation of this idiom is "The more things change, the more they stay the same." DorkKnight (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell if this is a joke, or you are just clueless. By the way, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose" is not, as you seem to think, an idiom -- it might be termed a saying, chestnut, bromide, cliche, or even (a stretch) a proverb, but it's certainly not an idiom. Again, you might want to take your own advice (above) and avoid use of big, technical terms you don't understand, such as idiom.
EEng (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability of the incident is clear. It may need to be renamed, but this is still a developing situation. She may end up running a charity or something, but for now the notability rests on the incident. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Taroaldo (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but immediately refocus on the video, and not have any more biographical detail than necessary. We don't want to obsess over a woman notable for one famous incident of kids being wankers. Sceptre (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another trivial news item that the news media has gone way overboard on its reporting. Nothing special or notable about mean teenagers on a bus. Definitely WP:NOTNEWS. If this article stands, Wikipedia will have hit a new low. The reason these articles usually get kept after deletion discussions like these is because of the mob mentality of people thinking that if they are interested in the topic, then it must have its own article, despite it being against Wikipedia policies.--JOJ Hutton 01:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - It is about more than mean teenagers on a bus. It ceased to be "trivial" when a guy in Toronto, Max Sidorov, started raising money for her [1], and the total is approaching $600,000. Taroaldo (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now fundraising money is notable enough to warrant an article? It's just another news story that the media is "milking" for all it's worth to sell newspapers, and ads. People like these feel good type of stories, but it doesn't make it notable enough for an entire article. That's just the very reason why Wikipedia has WP:NOTNEWS,, so that every single trivial news story that gets a bit extra attention by the media doesn't become it's own article. Yet, like it always seems to happen, fans of the story flock to the deletion boards and overwhelm the deletion discussion with their "keep" votes, and the closing admin usually, not always, plays it safe, and sides with the majority.--JOJ Hutton 02:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the pieces individually, none of it would merit consideration. That's not how it's done though. How does a book or movie achieve notability? People see/read it and talk about it; stuff gets written about it; it gets awards. If people watched a movie or read a book and nobody wrote about it or talked about it, but instead kept all their observations to themselves, then none of them would be notable. Somebody puts a few vids on YouTube, but nobody watches them. Flop. Another guy does the same thing and people like it and talk about it. The second guy ends up doing world tours and having 20 million followers on Twitter. Like it or not, that's kinda how it works. Taroaldo (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jojhutton: Your statements that "the news media has gone way overboard on its reporting" and "media is 'milking' for all it's worth" sound like admissions that the article topic has, in fact, recieved significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and thus meet our notability guideline. Your objection seems to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid reason for deletion. If you don't like this article, Wikipedia has plenty of other articles for you to work on. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic nonsense and an inappropriate attempt to use Wikipedia to permanently record yet another WP:BLP1E violation. People churn out privacy-invading videos every day and WP:N is not satisfied just because a lot of passers by discussed it. Where is the secondary source with an analysis of bullying or videos, and which mentions this case in any significant manner? Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DavidlChandler Pass a Method talk 14:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If Wikipedia itself is not a news site, then why isn't there a seperate Wiki News site?! In-Correct (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:VICTIM. Also the usual embarrassing, unencyclopedic type nonsense that unfortunately crops up on Wikipedia, thus making WP a media outlet rather than an encylcopedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I love the blind regurgitation of alphabet soup above that betrays the poster's understanding of what those policies really mean. For example, WP:BIO1E actually supports keeping the article. Sigh.... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I assure you I kept my eyes open while I regurgitated. Nor is it my fault that Wikipedia has the alphabet soup in the first instance. In any event (pun intended), it isn't clear to me what the name of this awful article is, so I figured I'd cover my bases. If you're going to name the article for the individual, there's one set of confusing policies, and if you're going to name it for the person, there's another, and then, of course, to some extent, there's an intersection of the policies to completely confuse even a sighted regurgitator. After all, this page says Karen Klein, but if you click on Karen Klein, it has the event name, or at least what passes for an event name - it's really the name of a medium. Maybe I should look at the notability guidelines for films?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment about WP:GNG misses the point completely. The one-event policies and guidelines are exceptions to the generalized notability guidelines. I'll agree they are confusing. I'll agree they are hard to apply, and AfDs like this one are almost always contentious - and it's almost impossible to predict the outcome - but GNG is irrelevant because it's a given.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You moved the article from its original "Named Person" title to an article on the incident. So far, so good. However, the article still features the named person, a totally non-public figure who has done absolutely nothing to warrant international attention, and submits her to permanent ridicule—and all because some bullies managed to get some space-filling media attention that will be forgotten in a week. An encyclopedia should have articles on topics: the effects of bullying (not a list of gossipy events, but serious stuff with secondary sources). Wikipedia should not be a place to hang trophies. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm...I'm not sure how to respond to this. I think that most of the world has a sympathetic view towards her, and I don't think that you're agreeing with the bulliers so I don't see how this is a 'trophy'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Oh. Somebody's already done that.
  • Keep - However, article needs revision / refocussing. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would just like to note that this user was canvassed to come !vote here: [2] SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the bus monitor's name from the lede and de-emphasized it in the article.[3] If there are more improvements that can be made, please let me know or feel free to do so yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The bus monitor has apparently gone public by conducting an interview with the press, a short excerpt is presented here.[4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good nomination. But after the renaming and the work by A Quest for Knowledge, the article is a lot better, and worthwhile. So keep. -- Hoary (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Textbook BLP1E, nothing more to say about a woman's notoriety for a singe event. As for an article, there's nothing about this that satisfies WP:EVENT, just another insipid viral news story that will be talked about for a week and forgotten, which is why WP:RECENTISM should be required reading for new article creation. Come back in a few months or so if this is still talked about in a greater scope. There's a lot of "keep its notable" emptiness up there that the closing admin needs to make note of and discard. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...you do realize that BLP1E is an argument for inclusion, not against and that RECENTISM is only an essay, right? If you disagree with GNG, fine, but this isn't the proper venue to change policy. AQFK (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, it isn't. There shouldn't be an article on the woman herself as she fails WP:BLP1E. There shouldn't be an article on the incident as it fails WP:EVENT. People that think either of these should be articles at all should be slapped upside the head with WP:RECENTISM. Two facts, and an opinion; not hard to understand. Tarc (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly but more concisely put.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, it is. Have you read it lately? If a lack of understanding of WP:BLP1E is the problem, then I suggest more time should be invested in understanding Wikipedia's policies. Thus far no one has provided a single policy-based reason why this article should be deleted, and sorry, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't cut it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to; possibly satisfying the GNG (remember that 2nd G means "guideline", sport; its not the "General Notability Policy") is not an automatic qualifier for an article. If a person has only received coverage in the context of one event, then the bean-counting of reliable sources that the person appears in is irrelevant. Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orville (cat) and count the sources. No article. I have pointed out valid reasons to delete above and while you may disagree with those reasons, to pretend they do not exist is quite a whopper of a lie, AQFK. I fear it is you that needs some remedial BLP1E brushing-up. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AQFK, when some !voted Keep, User:EEng happily put in a refrain about wasting everyone's time. Obversely, when someone !votes delete, we now have your misguided refrain of IDONTLIKEIT. Neither of you is being helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarc: Wow, you do realize that there is no "General Notability Policy"? There's the WP:GNG which is clearly satisfied. Again, can you provide a single policy or guideline-based justification for deleting this article? It's seems unfortunate that despite repeated calls, no one can provide a single valid reason why this article should be deleted. To be honest, if you can't come up with a reason, there's no point in even responding further. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, several times; a BLP1E failure for the woman (only coverage for a single event), a WE:Event failure (no historical or global scope, no lasting effect or impact). The point you're not getting here is that "satisfy the GNG" is not enough. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:BLP1E is an argument for inclusion, not against. Have you even read WP:BLP1E yet? Apparently not. Otherwise, you'd stop bringing it up. As for WP:EVENT, it calls for national coverage, not global coverage. But even if WP:EVENT called for global coverage, here it is.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Again, WP:BLP1E is an argument for inclusion"...No, it isn't, I don't know why you keep saying so fundamentally incorrect. Look at the number of articles that are nominated for and successfully deleted day in and day out by citing BLP1E. A most recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cigar guy. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E has 3 conditions, all of which need to be met in order for the article to be deleted. Condition 1 is met but not 2 and 3. Condition 2 says we should have an article about the event, not the person. Condition 3 is failed because of the significant coverage of this person's role in the event. WP:BLP1E is an argument for keeping the article, not deleting it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no, it isn't. That line that begins with "We should generally avoid having an article.." should be pretty obvious here. Also, it fails criteria 2, as giving a few interviews does not elevate someone from "low-profile". #3? Fail. Being video-taped crying on a bus is a interesting-news-of-the-day event, no long-lasting scope or importance. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Tarc (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand the difference between an article about a person and an article about an event? I ask because the phrase that you take out of context, "We should generally avoid having an article" actually states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person" (Emphasis mine). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
$650,000 living bullied bus monitor > €100,000 dead helo kitty. Q.E.D. CallawayRox (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources. Meets the WP:GNG. Change the focus, as per a number of editors have suggested already, if it helps garner consensus and fall within policy. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (under the current, renamed title). Yes, it's a very new story, but the amount of coverage it's received - and in particular, the remarkable success of the fundraising campaign - make this a clearly notable event already. It's arguably at least as notable as Bus Uncle or AC Transit Bus fight (or if not quite yet, it's certainly on the way there). Robofish (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Only temporarily notable, will be forgotten shortly. In addition, Wikipedia is referencing news outlets who are clearly being sensationalistic. Oh, and WP:BLP1E Skrelk (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The third criterion of WP:BLP1E says that an article should be deleted if "it is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". It then goes on to clarify what is meant by significant: "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". This event has been covered in reliable sources multiple times and there have been follow up coverage since the immediate aftermath of the event. Sure 3 months down the road we're not likely to see this in the news, but then again we don't often see mention of John Hinckley, Jr in the news either yet we keep that article. I think the current redirect is fine. Banedon (talk) 08:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the WP:GNG requirements, at least for now. Whether it will have long-lasting notability remains to be seen. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Klein&oldid=1180433474"