Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liskula Cohen

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. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Liskula Cohen

Liskula Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable, WP:LIVE. Stepar0 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The case may now have influence beyond the blog post and lawsuit.

  Claburn, Thomas (2009-01-07). "Model's Lawsuit Against Google Prompts Malware Bloom". InformationWeek. United Business Media. The Liskula Cohen defamation case has translated into a marketing opportunity that is now preying on social networking manipulation.

  If this meets the notability standard of WP:LIVE/WP:BLP, the article may require a rewrite to preserve "basic human dignity" (per WP:BLP). I'm not sure how to do that without preserving the blog link or explaining what the litigant was called in the blog. If the case goes to trial, it might make more sense to rename this article after the case, with a redirect; however, unless it sets a new precendent, the case itself may not be significant enough on its legal merits to warrant a freestanding article.

  "Google and other blog-hosting providers have been sued in similar suits plenty of times before."[1]

  / edg ☺ ☭ 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This person is notable as a model (a former cover girl for major mags) regardless of all other controversy, and preserving her dignity may be achieved by stating something like: "In 2009 Cohen brought a lawsuit against Google Inc. for not releasing the name of an anonymous blogger who allegedly defamed her".--Kiwipat (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• weak keep Appears to arguably meet WP:BIO albeit barely. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: as model on cover of major magazines and news development helps too. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:12, 14 January 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.