Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dog poop girl
AfDs for this article:  Per WP:ONEEVENT I believe this should be erased from Wikipedia, this was a small interest story for a short while in the internet community but beyond the dog poop incident she is without question not notable. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The event was well covered, and has been used as an example of how the internet has been used to harass people. Perhaps the name of the article should be changed, but even this is WP:ONEEVENT, it's still notable enough for an article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the rationale I've provided above (as nominator). Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This would be pushing WP:LESSTHANONEEVENT. Gimghoul28 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   —Dekkappai (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Wide, international coverage, commented on by a legal expert from George Washington University, THIS ARTICLE (and the movement to delete it) have even been cited. Obviously notable. Dekkappai (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to have enough coverage in sources. Though i would consider slight adjustments so the subject of the article is not the person but the obviously notable event to avoid further afds. -- neon white user page talk 22:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources, enough to satisfy notability. Nominator appears to be confused; the article is about the event, not the person. PC78 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article reads like it is a bio about the person which is something i suggest changing. -- neon white user page talk 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Obvious notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment By the way, Colonel, I'm not sure if I should thank you or curse you for introducing me to Deletion today... :) Dekkappai (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are worse places here. I've managed to avoid being sucked into RFA, for example. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't see the relevance or encyclopedic nature of this. Everything reported in the news is not worth an article - Otherwise we'd have articles on that guy who married a goat, or the girl who got thrown off a bus because her boyfriend kept her on a lead (at least I hope Tasha Maltby doesn't exist). Esteffect (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whenever someone says something like that, I always find that we have it. In this case, it's here. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And here's the goat. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, a goat with its own article... and I have to fight tooth and nail to keep some actress articles... Bah! :-( Dekkappai (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One has to fight tooth and nail to keep animals too. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * God, you're kidding me, right? Even as a local no-one really gave a toss about the goth couple after 24 hours. If you need to put a piece about criticising Arriva, don't do it about something that got in the news on a slow day. Sceptre (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Actually a fairly important story about privacy rights, the Internet, and the ubiquity of cell phone cameras (particularly in East Asia). The previous two nominations were also closed keep with strong support. Three strikes and this AfD is out; let this be the last, please. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Revealing insights into Korean Culture and its language. Well-referenced and obviously notable. --Firefly322 (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of sources.  Notability well established.  Ford MF (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this story actually has references. Although, I strongly recommend renaming and refocusing so it is clear that the article discusses the incident and reaction thereto, and not the actual person involved.-- danntm T C 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dog poop girl incident, perhaps? &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't consider that the title necessarily needs changing as the event is probably known by that title. I do however suggest changing the lead to make it clear that this article is about the incident not the person although maybe a title change would help this. I have posted a brief proposal on the talk page Talk:Dog poop girl feel free to contribute! -- neon white user page talk 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Mixed opinions on keeping it. But as to renaming: Per the article discussion page, the more literal translation would be Dog shit girl, not really much of an improvement. If kept, the focus must be on the internet vigilantism and not on the individual. Edison (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I saw this on the list and immediately thought, "Do they mean Dog Shit Girl?" Well-covered in the media and an interesting, albeit creepy, social phenomenon. As others said, "Dog shit girl" is a more accurate name, and the article should focus on the people finding her, but this is a keeper. Fogster (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as the definition of WP:ONEVENT. That being said, the reason that this gained any notability at all was for the issues of internet vigilantism, to which portions of this article should be merged.  That the article has references in undisputed; but the topic (removed from the internet vigilantism aspect) is totally unencyclopedic.  BWH76 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Internet vigilantism is, at the moment, a fairly well-balanced article. It discusses the Dog Shit Girl incident but only briefly as part of an overview. Merging the details of this article in would dominate that article. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is referenced from the List of Internet phenomena page, and is very relevant in that context. That page is a repository of essentially one-hit wonders of the Internet World anyhow.  To delete this article wouldn't be all that different than deleting the Video Killed the Radio Star page on grounds that the first song on M-TV is now, 27 years later, irrelevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TechCat (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 May 2008 (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.