Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Napolis


 * 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 Close one, but WP:BLP concerns weren't really fixed during this AFD, and we should err on the side of caution concerning these BLPs Secret account 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Diana Napolis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article subject is not genuinely notable (NOTNEWS, NOTINHERITED, etc). The individual has been identified by court action as mentally disturbed, and her disorder is manifested by stalking various celebrities and making abusive online comments regarding notable and nonnotable people. The subject is now apparently involved in disputes over the content of the article. No good can come of any of this. While there is considerable, mostly local, news coverage regarding court proceedings resulting from the subject's celebrity stalking, there is no indication of any significant or enduring consequences from her actions, except to herself. There is really nothing to show the subject is actually notable, rather than the center of a private tragedy that can only be worsened by maintaining this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

'' Note: This AfD is being debated in an external forum. ''


 * Delete Not necessary for an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this person does not seem notable. as a side note, i think she's using socks to edit her article. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this is notable enough. It's a horrible thing to say, but she hasn't shot anyone blown anyone up run amok in a school or anything like that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:BIO by a wide margin. There is sustained coverage from 1997|+S.D.+company+targeted+in+defamation+case&pqatl=google to 2003 of a number of different events of considerable importance, including full-article mentions in major international newspapers, as well as a significant mention in at least one book concerning her role in the satanic ritual abuse moral panic.  Her actions are decidedly not private, having ensnared many people and attracted international interest.  Both of the issues for which she is known - the child abuse witch hunts and stalking of celebrities - are serious matters that deserve encyclopedic treatment, and she was one of the better known and more prolific contributors to both, and continues to be mentioned the world over in that context.  It is too bad that she is mentally ill but that is not an exclusion criterion for otherwise notable individuals.  If anything it points to a BLP concern in how to describe her actions. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wide margin? The sources  don't "address the subject directly in detail". There is evidence of a "passing mention", but not significant coverage. --Jmundo (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The page currently uses 8 sources. Mackenzie 2002 is short, but solely about Napolis stalking Speilberg.  Sauer 2000 is a 2500-word news story solely about Napolis' identity being discovered.  Bocij 2004 is a book by a scholarly publisher featuring a two page discussion and summary of Napolis, and her implications for cyberstalking.  Sauer 2002 is another news article about Napolis, this time focussing on her involvement with celebrities.  DeYoung 2004 is another scholarly book that discusses Napolis at length.  The Australian published a piece about Napolis, Speilberg and Love-Hewitt in 2002.  People saw fit to publish Napolis' guilty plea.  City News Service published a 250 piece as well on her sentence in 2003.  They address the topic squarely (i.e. these are about Napolis, and not in a tangential manner), and there's a lot of them.  I'd use one lengthy news piece alone as justification for an article, let alone eight.  This isn't passing mention, this is in-depth details on her on-line activities, the discovery of her real-life identity and her later "involvement" with celebrities and the legal outcome.  I really don't understand this being considered "passing mention".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per Wikidemon.  Clearly meets notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * delete Clearly a BLP1E - famous only for being well a bit obsessed even over a period of time its still one event and still not worth documenting. Spartaz Humbug! 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just as one can be notable for being spectacularly wrong about something. Over a long period of time and about many topics is simply not one event. The principle here is NOT CENSORED; we do not exist to protect adults from themselves, if they get sufficient publicity from major sources over a length of time, especially when they are in fact significant in the history of a subject, as she is with Satanic ritual abuse.    DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While I believe that the motivations of the nominator have merit on a personal level, I also believe that notability has been established and concurring with DGG wikipedia is not censored. Somewhat self-contradictory, if possible we should honor requests for removal from those that are responsible for the care of Ms Napolis, but we are not in a position to act on our notions of what might constitute material benefit to the subject of the article. I do not see that the article, as a whole, fails HARM. Unomi (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability has been fairly established.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, repeated mention in multiple news sources, popular magazines and scholarly books. Sails pass WP:N, has significant coverage (numerous articles exclusively about her and her actions both as an on-line presence in the satanic ritual abuse phenomenon and for celebrity stalking) in reliable, secondary sources (People, The San Diego Union-Tribune, books by scholarly publishing houses), well independent of the subject.  Easily enough for a stand-alone article.  Note that Napolis is famous for at least two things - her on-line presence in the SRA circumstances (resulting in news articles and books covering how her identity was revealed and her impact on personal privacy concerns) and for stalking two extremely high-profile celebrities (four more news articles).  As for harm to the subject - everything is sourced, wikipedia is not therapy, pages are not deleted because they might hurt someone's feelings, and consider the impact of Napolis' past (and future) accusations against, say, Elisabeth Loftus, Carol Hopkins and Michael Aquino.  Loftus has been attacked at conferences based on accusations revolving around the SRA moral panic.  Keep, utter, utter keep.  I regularly monitor the page, and have never seen evidence of Napolis editing the page via sock puppets (however, the permabanned User:ResearchEditor has been doing so).   Napolis has edited the talk page but never the main page, and some talk and main pages of several articles. The most regular sock is the permabanned ResearchEditor, who was editing towards his usual "SRA was real" theory - easily recognized and addressed.  Napolis herself has edited the page, but only to put in an inappropriate EL.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WLU and others. Clearly meets WP:N.  She is also notable for much more than simply "one event" as one of the delete voters has stated.  As WLU points out her involvement with SRA has received attention from scholars as well.  There is simply no policy rationale for deleting this.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly a BLP1E and pointing and staring at mentally disturbed people is not what wikipedia is for.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a BLP1E regardless of how much attention she may have received.  JBsupreme (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - another BLP1E case, and Doc sums it up rather well - A l is o n  ❤ 12:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it a technicality that Napolis is well known for three things? On-line harassment (to the point that she's iconic), threatening and stalking Steven Spielberg and threatening and stalking Jennifer Love Hewitt.  BLP1E calls for evaluation against "the context of a single event" and merging the person's page into the event page.  There's more than one event and there's no page about a single one to be merged into.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, for Christ's sake. BLP1E. I shudder to think what's in that navbox. Jack Merridew 13:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I lack a lot of experience working with BLP pages in general and don't see BLP1E very often, so could someone explain (probably on my talk page) why this qualifies as a BLP1E? If the navbox contents are problematic (I had difficulty filling in the "known for" field) then we could leave it selectively blank, I don't really have a problem with that.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Question regarding BLP1E. As WLU suggests, can someone explain why this qualifies as a BLP1E?  Can I suggest doing so at the BLP/N where there is already any discussion about the entry.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion of this article is to be here, not elsewhere. She is notable only as a stalker of Steven Spielberg. Ill-people stalk celebrities - that's not notable. If she'd knifed him that would be different. She's got various others deranged rantings which some people like to point and stare at. The main reason for excluding this is that it is at best marginally notable, and any smidgeon of ethics would tell us we don't point and stare at people who are mentally ill. If you can't grasp an ethical argument here and want to nitpick over the minutiae of our alphabet soup, then I've really nothing to discuss with you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly capable of grasping ethical arguments and I'm not nitpicking over minutiae. If the main argument for delete is a specific section of a specific policy and some of us ignoramuses are fuzzy on how it applies here it is perfectly understandable to ask for an explanation.  Geez.  I suggested the BLP/N simply because there is already an ongoing discussion there.  If you would rather explain here then by all means go ahead.  I'm all ears.  As a side note the entry makes it rather clear that she is notable for much more than stalking one celebrity, so I fail to understand why people keep on claiming differently.PelleSmith (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read the sources, you will see that she is not notable only for stalking Spielberg. She also stalked Love-Hewitt (which doesn't add much) but she first came to the attention of the press as a notable participant in the satanic ritual abuse moral panic.  Perhaps this is an extension of her beliefs, but there are three separate incidents discussed in the press, and two mentions in scholarly books.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - Subjectively I don't like the article, I don't like drawing attention to a person's problems in an encyclopedia article and I'm tempted to ask for deletion per WP:IAR. But objectively, I have to admit that this article does pass Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion due to the extensive coverage demonstrated. That might cause one to doubt whether our inclusion guidelines need adjustment, but this AfD is not where to discuss that. The "single event" arguments don't make sense; there are at least 3 different "events" being discussed in the article. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to a person who is only famous for "one thing", in fact most notable people are only notable for a single reason (sports heroes, actors, scientists only famous for being scientific achivements, etc.). BLP1E is for a person only famous for a particular incident, in which case the incident deserves an article not the person. This person has received attention for multiple events. --  At am a  頭 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have totally misunderstood how deletion works in Wikipedia. "Inclusion guidelines" are no pieces of legislation that bind us here. They are guidelines. They are produced by reflecting what happens at Afd (descriptive NOT proscriptive). That means we don't change the guidelines in order to change what happens here, rather if people start doing things differently here, we then update the guidelines. They are not legislation. If you think this article does not belong on wikipedia, then you argue for its deletion. Deletion Policy simply says that we delete what there is a consensus to delete. So, leaving the guidelines aside, do you think this subject is suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia (hint: I think ethical considerations are perfectly appropriate here, but your mileage may vary.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm choosing not to argue WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I'm instead judging my argument based on standards set by the community. I don't argue based on my own personal bias. That is how deletion is supposed to work in Wikipedia. --  At am a  頭 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are missing the point. The standards are set by the community HERE at AFD, not by haggling over a guideline page which is supposed to describe not proscribe what we do here. You are right that you don't use your biases here, but you do use your judgement and you brain. If you think the guideline is right, fine. If you think it is wrong, then say why and decide accordingly. "IDONTLIKEIT" isn't the point. --Scott Mac (Doc) 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is a policy and trumpts GNG which is a guideline. Please don't be legalistic here - think about the pointing at the mentally ill. I would have hoped we could find a clear consensus that being mean to sick deluded people isn't morally right. Spartaz Humbug! 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartaz, do you think that Napolis is famous for only one event? If the deletion discussion is about BLP1E then I'd really like to understand how this qualifies - I still see three incidents, three separate waves of coverage.  If the deletion discussion is about IAR because she's mentall ill, then we should focus on ethics and morality rather than policy (and probably re-launch the discussion).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is about both. This article is marginal - given that, and the ethics, should we keep it? Some people see interpreting rules and guidelines literalisticly as the way to answer this, others take other factors into account. It isn't about one or the other, different people are swayed by different considerations (or the same ones to different degrees). The closing admin will have to see where the consensus lies.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if we're going to invoke BLP1E (as policy as well), then we should be sure it's actually meets the criteria laid out in BLP1E. I just don't see it, I see three events (BLP3E?) and I'm looking for clarification on whether I'm missing something.  For people !voting BLP1E, is the 1E the belief system?  The stalking?  Otherise, it's more "Delete - marginable notability and ethical obligation means we should ignore the guidelines."  Very different, but it's quite possible that a) I don't really understand BLP1E (and explaining it to me helps my editing and the wiki as a whole) or b) we've got different definitions of 1E (and no amount of discussion will help).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've thought more about it and I think I'm going to ask to delete this. I still don't think this even comes close to WP:BLP1E but I think the spirit of our BLP policy is to do no harm to the article subject. I realize that Wikipedia isn't censored, and that the article subject even implicitly endorses the article (since it is alleged that she has edited the article anonymously to make minor changes to it), but I don't think the encyclopedia is better with this article. Perhaps merge some of the info to satanic ritual abuse. --  At am a  頭 23:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Strip away the celebrity factor, at the end, what do you have? A private individual with a tragic mental disorder. Is that notable? Probably the case for inclusion can be made arguing the technicalities of Wiki policy and her marginal notability, but count me out of that discussion. --Jmundo (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:BIO and WP:RS criteria. Warrah (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Stalking. She is by no means a subject of national debate like, for instance, Nidal Hasan or Lee Harvey Oswald. I agree with DGG, and harm to the subject matter does not enter my thoughts on this. She just is not sufficiently notable.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sad case for those involved. Wikilawyering does not persuade me of notability. Do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Those who claim notability point to two academic books and a whole lot of coverage in the media. I don't see how that is wikilawyering. Can you explain exactly how the entry does harm?  People invoking this "do no harm" argument are assuming this is simply obvious, but to those of us who are not mental health experts some explanation is required, particularly when we write about equally or more tragic situations and individuals at this encyclopedia every day.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. A lot of delete votes are appearing on this page based on what seem to be knee jerk reactions to the fact that the individual who is the subject of this entry has a mental disorder of some kind.  Let's be clear about one thing.  BLPE1 does not apply here, since notability is established through several events.  No defense of BLPE1 has been made despite a number of requests.  What remains is a "do no harm" argument.  The fact that this argument cannot be more adequately articulated through policy, as opposed to a more general appeal to "morals" or "ethics" is telling of the fact that our current policies do not explicitly deal with situations like this.  One might ask why we have biographies of other unbalanced living people without any such protest.  Because those people don't deserve the sympathy of Wikipedia editors while someone like Napolis does?  I'm not comfortable making that kind of judgement and I don't think anyone else here should be either.  Who are we to say to the victims of cyber stalking and harassment that what happened to them is somehow out-weighed by our human emotions of "sadness" towards their victimizer?  The point is that we shouldn't even be engaged in this line of reasoning at all, but I'm afraid this seems to be what is happening.  As DGG put it above, when someone's own behavior thrusts them into the spotlight we are not here to protect them from themselves.  Keep voters have argued that Napolis is clearly notable and that her entry is quite informative to subject areas like Satanic ritual abuse and cyber stalking.  Yes the situation involving the subject is tragic.  We all share the same amounts of sadness and sympathy for her but it isn't necessary to make a delete vote to prove it.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are basically saying is that the keep argument rejects any ethical considerations, and wants to stand on the application of rules. The thing is, many wikipedians do not agree with that. Many of us think that where the subject is on the margin of notability, that we should exercise some degree of humanity and compassion (these are naturally subjective). You may "be uncomfortable" with such subjectivity - but many are more and morally uncomfortable with discounting it. Fortunately, we don't need to decide some objecctive universal rule here that governs a whole set of article, since we delete or keep by consensus. Therefore we discuss and go by consensus here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure but consensus is not determined by tallying votes. Our AfD guidelines state the following:
 * The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
 * When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.
 * A closing admin should consider BLPE1 a moot argument unless it is explained (which means a good number of commenters here whose only claim is that it violates said policy have not added to any consensus). As to the moral argument, I'm afraid I don't really see an argument.  What I see a is an unexplained reaction.  How this entry poses harm is the operative question in regards to the moral argument.  There can be no moral or ethical argument to protect someone from harm unless, bare minimum, the possibility of harm is established.  Your own wording does not tell us how the entry is even possibly harmful though it does project judgement onto phantom others who are hypothetically viewing the page in a way that is disagreeable to you -- "staring at mentally disturbed people is not what wikipedia is for".   In fact what do you even base the idea that "staring at the mentally disturbed" is an outcome of having entries like this in the first place?   Or is the most common outcome?  This is a pretty bleak picture of our users you are presenting.  My point is that I don't think much thought is going into this reaction.  It looks like a knee jerk reaction ... an admirable one ... but that doesn't change the fact that it lacks credible evidence.  Of course even if the possibility of harm can be argued (and indeed it could be argued for most of our entries in some manner or another) the probability of harm, or the relative relationship between harm and encyclopedic benefit has certainly not been established.  If you claim that these types of equations are not relevant then I will point you once again to Charles Manson whom we all read about precisely because of events directly related to his own mental problems.  If it is clear why his entry belongs and this doesn't such equations must be at work here and I remain uncomfortable with the idea that Wikipedia editors are deciding which notable mentally disturbed people deserve entries and which don't based upon our own personal knee jerk feelings of sympathy.PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the notability question is fairly balanced - for me the ethical consideration (is this what we should be doing?) pushes that balance to delete. The rest of this is circular. You don't think my argument is valid (obviously), but I and others do. I am just as uncomfortable with your refusal to take the "impact of the article" into account. But this isn't about your comfort or mine. The closing admin will have to decide where consensus lies. We work by consensus not hard and fast rules.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you claim the notability question is balanced when the only argument against notability is BLP1E and its entirely fallacious, a point no one is willing to defend with argument? Regarding the moral argument I'm asking you and others to explain what the "impact of the article" actually is.  What harm is actually going to befall someone because of it?  Lacking this it is not an argument at all.  Our conversation is indeed becoming circular, though my logic is not.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are still rules-mongering about BLP1E. I don't care whether this article meets the letter of that or not. The fact is that this is not a very notable person, who has done nothing much, and her exclusion from this encyclopedia is no big deal (unlike if we don't have an article on, say, Charles Manson). The fact is that further publicising the case of a person who has received passing media attention only because of activities that indicate mental instability is a piss poor thing to do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that you don't know what "further publicizing the case" will do and if you do I'm not sure why you keep refusing to answer that question. I see unnecessary hysteria over unscientific assumptions about what is or is not detrimental to someone's mental health, which is ironic given the fact that the subject of the entry in question is notable for her involvement in the satanic ritual abuse moral panic.  Entries like this are valuable to topics like satanic ritual abuse just like entries on people like Charles Manson are valuable to larger topics like serial killing.  They provide further information on some of the actors involved. The fact that deletion commentators here (bar one) aren't even considering a merge makes it abundantly clear that they don't remotely understand this fact.  In the end losing this entry may be a blip in the grand scheme of the encyclopedia but its the larger trend in delete voting here based on emotionally charged moralizing without any purported basis in actual fact that I find problematic going forward.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. With regard to the (generally problematic) application of BLP1E, I think my nomination rationale needs a little clarification. There's a not-very-helpful inconsistency between the BLP1E section of the general BLP policy, which says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event," and the parallel section of the notability guideline, which says "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event." I think both significance and coverage need to be taken into account; to stack the deck, if someone who otherwise falls under BLP1E for a different were to later win PowerBall and received a brief flurry of press coverage, they should still fall under BLP1E because the second event lacks adequate significance. That's how I think the celebrity stalking should be viewed; absent some particularly significant aspect to the situation, stalking a celebrity is a common if reprehensible event, and the stalkers themselves are typically insignificant, as they do not inherit their target's notability. (The Margaret Rays of the world are the exceptions, not the rule.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the further clarification but you're comparing apples to oranges. Napolis is discussed in an academic work on cyber stalking as a notable cyber stalker, ... notable for three separate events of cyber stalking and not one stalking event and then winning the powerball.  One of these events is independently notable as an aspect of the satanic ritual abuse moral panic and is discussed as such in yet another academic book.  This is above and beyond the media coverage spawning from her celebrity stalking events alone.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not believe that celebrity stalking, in and of itself, is enough for notability. Internet trolling certainly isn't. The fact is that we probably wouldn't even have this article if it wasn't for Ms. Napolis's Internet activities &mdash; the stalking incidents are basically window dressing to this article. *** Crotalus *** 17:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is not whether we believe celebrity stalking is notable or not (an opinion and a variation on just not notable), the point is that it has coverage in independent, secondary sources (a lot of them). I don't think evidence-free vitamin-pushing is notable, but I wouldn't argue that Matthias Rath should be deleted and it shouldn't matter what I think.  Notable cranks, pseudoscientists, and even the mentally ill are still notable, even if it's not for a good thing - notability is press coverage, not what we define is importance.  The reasons we have policies and guidelines is so we don't base this solely on votes of what individuals consider important.  As an additional assertion of notability, Napolis' actions also led to a historically significant law suit.
 * As for the ethical arguments, I just don't see it as a clear black-and-white. But that's a huge and difficult conversation and I have no idea how much merit to give it or how much weight it holds in a deletion discussion.  I guess that's what DRV and the closing admin are for.  If it is deleted, a full discusion and rationale would be appreciated as it looks like it's coming down to a simple vote.  And if we're going to vote, despite other stuff existing we should also vote down Florentino Floro - the parallels are pretty obvious.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete While she may technically fulfill the notability guideline, article of such mentally ill person who is marginally notable at best has no real encyclopedic value and feels generally inappropriate, so I believe that it should be deleted per WP:UCS.--Staberinde (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per excellent points by Wikidemon, WLU and DGG. The subject is unfortunately but obviously notable for several high-profile incidents reported in several RS, so BLP1E clearly does not apply. There are also several Google Books hits, which are not passing mentions: see an entire subchapter about her here. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP: "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered." Never mind the technicalities of BLP1E and NOTNEWS, Scott Mac has it right: "further publicising the case of a person who has received passing media attention only because of activities that indicate mental instability is a piss poor thing to do." JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to remember that WP:BLP includes WP:WELLKNOWN. In this case it is definitely not "passing media attention": we have books on stalking presenting her case in detail, see above. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Can editors please desist from canvassing at Wikipedia Review? A series of brief delete !votes derive from the posting there, and should be given less weight as Wikipedia Review is known to be hardline on BLPs. WP:NOTNEWS could apply to this case, but for the couple of books that discuss the case. Most of the news coverage is local, her case wasn't given very much attention by the media. I'm surprised nobody has looked at WP:PERP: #2 is satisfied, i.e. "The victim is a renowned world figure". I'm in two minds, but keep it is. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PERP involves "high profile" crimes as well as celebrity victims (and I don't think JLH quite meets the "renowned world figure" standard). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Spielberg sure does, and Jennifer Love Hewitt is a worldwide celebrity. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:05, 9 December 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.