Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbie Kardashian case


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Rough consensus is that WP:NOTNEWS applies: not everything that's in the news is encyclopedic. This can change if the person or the case get sustained, substantial and high-quality media coverage.  Sandstein  08:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Barbie Kardashian case

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems to be a BLP1E behind a "case" moniker. Passing similarity to another case, notable or not does not affect this article. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: badly written for sure. This article should focus on the case itself instead of being a shell to the "Barbie Kardashian" person. That said, I am not sure how well does WP:BLP1E apply here. If we treat it as a case, then it has some notability (the spectator.co.uk source is not reliable, but we may also consider independent.ie, or the local source limerickleader.ie). --TheLonelyPather (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also be open to TNT, since the title could be notable. It is the content that really needs some re-work. TheLonelyPather (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to improve it by reworking it. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not personally seeing how WP:GNG, WP:CRIMINAL, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:LASTING are met here. Notwithstanding that it is unclear what "case" is the subject of the article (the person's conviction or the question about place of incarceration?), this article only seems to exist on the basis of run-of-the-mill reporting (which we might find for any crime/conviction) and possible WP:OSE/WP:INHERIT stretches to connect with the more high-profile (and hence notable) Scottish "case". (In short, yes there is/was coverage of this person's conviction/incarceration, but how does it rise to the level that exceeds the threshold(s) expected by NCRIMINAL/NOTNEWS/LASTING/1E?). Guliolopez (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep because, like the Isla Bryson case - which no-one has suggested deleting - it's notable & reliably sourced. They've both been discussed & reported internationally, as well as commented on by political leaders. It's far from run-of-the-mill. BK isn't notable, nor are her crimes or sentence. However, her imprisonment & the reaction to it is. A journalist asked Leo Varadkar about the case. There's a petition to move BK because many people say she should be imprisoned with men rather than women, due to her being biologically male & retaining her male genitals. Were BK a cisgender man or cisgender woman, there'd be no notability to the case. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources are not sufficient in number or quality to show that this passes GNG or BLP1E. Rab V (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How many sources does the article need? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not establish notability per WP:SUSTAINED/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The petition to remove BK from the women's section of the prison has existed since 2020. Does that count as coverage? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Change.org a reliable source? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. The Spectator article is WP:RSOPINION (and blatant sensationalist garbage; we shouldn't be citing it at all if it weren't literally the only notable source). No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 18:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not the only notable source. The article includes refs from The Irish Times & the Irish Examiner. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2023 (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.