Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Vasquez


 * 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. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Camille Vasquez

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

A case of WP:BLPIE and WP:TOOSOON. This lawyer is only notable for one ongoing high profile case and all coverage is very recent. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Law. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, does not fail WP:BLP1E due to the significant nature of her role in said event and persistent coverage in reliable sources lasting many months. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * how many months? one or two at most? Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of kindness, I think you're both slightly missing the mark of what BLP1E aims to do. This is very well summarised here WP:NOTBLP1E. To crudely summarise the summary: BLP1E only excludes when all three criteria are met. So any of us only need to say that one of them isn't met for the whole thing to be thrown out. So when I say she's not likely to remain low profile in future (which seems like a safe hypothesis given how famous she is now) that's enough to veto BLP1E reasons to drop this article. CT55555 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect . If notability is only related to the Depp–Heard case it is a plausible redirect to that. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking my redirect per depth of coverage. Perhaps we can revisit this when the dust settles and the subject's long-term importance becomes clearer. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep WP:BLP1E is the policy quoted (I'll focus on that and ignore the essay) and it says not to create an article only when all three of the following criteria are met:
 * If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
 * If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
 * If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
 * The first criteria is met. The second one is not met. In my opinion, she is not likely to remain low profile after this event. The third one is debatable, but we need all three to be met to justify deleting and that is clearly not the case here. CT55555 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: BLP1E criterion #1 is clearly met, #2 and #3 are debatable. In my opinion, her role in the trial and coverage thereof is significant enough to fulfill #3, but marginally so. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 20:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with my colleagues above that she passes WP:GNG and this is not a problem of WP:BLP1E or WP:TOOSOON. This trial has become an important cultural event, and the subject of this article will likely be renowned for a long time. (She will likely even be portrayed in film and TV one day, though not sure if that makes a difference.) -PaulPachad (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I think that the article currently is quite bad, however I think that if we keep the article that it will most likely be definitely improved to a good article standard. Bigeshjen (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Strong Keep She argued a case which set legal precedent and was covered snd heard around the world. This is a silly nomination made just because of standing on a single point of initial logic which would seem to justify it.Strattonsmith (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC) CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per above reasons InvadingInvader (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't think she's likely to remain low profile. Popoki35 (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep, close as snowball. Has become one of the most high profile lawyers in the United States, and we can be certain her career will skyrocket as a result of the win. I mean, how many lawyers have been immortalized in tattoo form... Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep You cannot deny that this trial has solidified her notability with reliable sources. Arguably, she got as much attention (and I'll say it... for mostly sexist reasons) as the plaintiff and the defendant in this high profile case. A case which she won. A modern day Cochran, really. Trillfendi (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Overwhelming now unanimous consensus for keep above, I suggest a WP:SNOWBALL early close.
 * Edited my own comment above CT55555 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep nearly a billion impressions on a hashtag created for her? Beyond just the case her notability has been demonstrated, even if it initially started with the case. Coverage already exists for her. WikiVirusC (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is notable by the guidelines listed. General and biography. And in real-life. IrishOsita (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — BLPE1 is being cited here? I guess I’m not the only new one here. Reading Beans Talk to the Beans? 12:14, 3 June 2022 (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.