Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes Haefer

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. This is a BLP1E. I'd rather not redirect, though I can't stop anyone from creating one; but I will not do it myself. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Haefer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This bio violates WP:BIO1E. The only coverage here - none of which features her name as the article title/subject - is for being one of many members of the PayPal 14, none of whom are mentioned on the PayPal 14 article. Cagepanes (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO1E WP:PERPETRATOR--Savonneux (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to PayPal 14. Notable incident, just not enough to support a BPL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would need to be merged? There is already a section on the PayPal14 article about the court case. --Cagepanes (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect on her name with a one-sentence summary and a few links would be appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't have the other 13 listed in that article, so it would be undue weight only listing her. --Cagepanes (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE AfD started by sock of indeffed user Kbabej. Possibly this AfD should be discarded? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two !votes already. I'd say to let it run, per WP:SK # 4. Kraxler (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Source here, substantive coverage on NPR, mention in The Atlantic, mention in The Guardian, mention here, coverage here, mention here, substantive coverage here, meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. from WP:BIO1E. Being one of 14 people arrested, for an event that involved hundreds possibly, does not constitute a "large role." Not an organizer, most of the charges dropped etc. All points to a minor role.--Savonneux (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PayPal 14. Unclear why she is particularly notable relative to others in the group, and no indication of notability outside of this event/group. The refs in the article and linked here are significant coverage of the group, with only incidental mentions of Haefer; the only significant coverage of Haefer linked so far is the UNLV student paper 'rebel yell', which as a student paper does little to establish her notability. The darkreading.com article in refs is borderline, but in my view not substantial enough to establish notability apart from the group, either.Dialectric (talk) 06:41, 18 September 2015 (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.