Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Diar

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. Clear keep after a cleanup of the article. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar[edit]

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

Subject was involved in a run-of-the-mill crime that does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:CRIME since it had no persistence, significant coverage or lasting effects on society. Murders like this are not that uncommon and the victim was no one significant. Except for a single episode of Deadly Women, there is no mentioning of this suspect in any crime documentaries. Not everyone who is featured on Deadly Women is notable enough for an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - The article needs a rewrite to remove POV violations. I don't have strong feelings about this article and wouldn't fight hard to keep it, but I don't think this is an obvious case of failing to meet notability guidelines. She has enough news coverage, imo. Bali88 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:Removed some of the POV violations and inconsistent statements (You can't say with certainty that she suffocated him if the cause of death couldn't be determined)Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the mill case. Fails one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - enough news coverage to reach notability in my opinion. But article is in need of a shape-up.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added a reference about her reinstated life sentence. I also found a news story of the overturned sentence on the Supreme Court of Ohio website here. There is also articles about a clemency request she made and then dropped in 2013.
Keep I cleaned up the article, it has enough 3rd party to be notable. Frmorrison (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - enough news coverage to reach notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that it reaches notability. United States Man (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2014 (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.