Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther Reed


 * 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   no consensus and defaulting to keep since the article is well-sourced and meets the requirements of WP:BLP policy to meet WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Significant objections to deletion have been raised, since the incidents are covered in printed books, not merely newspapers, which according to many participants makes the event more than a mere news story. Whether this is a ONEEVENT matter is also unclear since there is a string of events, not just a single incident, even though they are all related. The objections to deletion have not convinced everyone (indeed, the "vote tally" is 8-6 for deletion), but since they have some objective merit as they relate directly to the WP:GNG guideline, and significant support, I cannot read a rough consensus to delete here. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Esther Reed

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is basically another marginally or non-notable biography of a person who was convicted of petty crimes. I don't think being on America's Most Wanted is sufficient to warrant notability, especially that this is basically WP:ONEEVENT again (the 'one event' being her criminal activity). As User:Olz06 says on the talk page, " I do not see the point of this article being on wikipedia" - A l is o n  ❤ 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: This AfD is being debated by editors in an external forum.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Nolamgm (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per my own nom! - A l is o n  ❤ 04:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per nom, the WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, delete as non notable. ++Lar: t/c 04:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. --129.21.129.100 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The subject has received significant media coverage for her actions from reliable sources both inside and outside the United States. Perhaps WP:ONEEVENT needs to be more specific on cases like this?Hack (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per BLP1E and failure to satisfy WP:N/CA. Subject is not otherwise notable, and while interesting, this incident holds no historic significance. Lara  15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for pretty much the same reasons as Miriam Sakewitz (AFD). This seems to fall afoul of WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT. I see no evidence that there has been any biographical coverage of this person in reliable third-party sources, as opposed to coverage of specific criminal activities of which she has been accused. Unless someone can show independent treatment of this person as a biographical subject, we should not do so, since that would violate the policy against original research. *** Crotalus *** 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Regards Huldra (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I hate to be contrary, but this was not a single crime, but a major crime spree, by one of the FBI's most wanted. I recall seeing the reports on TV. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep She "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I agree it is not the greatest article for WP but she does meet WP:BIO. If historical significance was our test for notability than we would not need WP:PORNBIO or WP:ATHLETE. Nolamgm (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but that's why we have Notability (criminal_acts), which is germane to this debate. In particular, "Perpetrators of high-profile crimes do not automatically qualify as notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question" - A l is o n  ❤ 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as WP:BIO and WP:N/CA are basically reiterations of of WP:GNG, Notability (criminal_acts) is reiteration of WP:ONEEVENT. I do not beleive that WP:ONEEVENT should ever be a reason for deletion. WP:ONEEVENT is to ensure that a WP article focuses on the notable. I respect your nomination because I think you got the analysis right. The first question in any AfD should be WP:GNG. I think that this individual does meet the WP:GNG guideline because she "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." That is our guideline. (As an aside, if I was going by my own POV then I would say she was not notable.) WP:ONEEVENT, and more importantly in this case the policy of WP:BLP1E should only be used to make sure that otherwise non-notable individuals are not made notable because they took part in a singlenotable event. This article is not about a single event. The coverage of the individual is not about a single event. Nolamgm (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lots of people commit identity fraud, however, this one received international recognition and was featured on CBS's 48 Hours, AMW, and the Secret Service's Top 10 Most Wanted. She was also written about in a section about student load fraud in a book about identity theft:. Therefore, the coverage appears to be significant and persistent enough to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and N/CA and thus override WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E. [Since the criminal act(s) and the criminal are essentially one and the same here, I don't think perp section of WP:N/CA really applies.] I agree with Hack that certain guidelines need to be more specific on articles like this. Location (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Also from Notability (criminal_acts), "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event." I would suggest the execution of the crime was reasonably unusual.Hack (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This subject has been the subject of significant coverage as per WP:GNG - 1) in the broadcast media; 2) in the electronic media; and 3) in print. The coverage focused both on the subject and the actions of the subject e.g. the chess playing, the plastic surgery and the subject's academic ability. This subject has also met the criteria The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual under Notability (criminal_acts). It would appear WP:ONEEVENT, as it is currently written, does not preclude this subject from being notable as this is not one contiguous event, the subject's actions were a series of criminal acts over almost a decade, all of which were serious enough to be considered federal felonies.Hack (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Basically per Hack and Location; again here we are in a case of strong coverage by RS around several years for multiple events. Deletion is contrary to all guidelines. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  13:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. She's already getting into the history books so notability goes beyond news coverage, and that book does include biographical details. If this is kept this should be moved to something like Esther Reed (identity thief) and Esther Reed made into a redirect to the much more notable Esther de Berdt. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "History books"? She's being used as a case study in a criminology book. In context, this reference doesn't seem to support the subject's notability; it is just one example of identity theft chosen more or less at random. *** Crotalus *** 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She was among the top 10 most wanted fugitives and received news coverage for multiple identity thefts, spanning at least 10 years. Not bad for being an example chosen "more or less at random". Being used as a remarkable case study, plus all the coverage makes her notable by every conceivable notability standard. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  21:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. BLP. 1E. 67.170.86.33 (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * May you elaborate? She's been discussed extensively among years not only on news sources, but also on books on identity theft (thanks Phil Bridger). What do we need more for notability? -- Cycl o pia -  talk  15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. And please, for the love of God, do not move it to Esther Reed (identity thief) as was suggested above. MookieZ (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Alison's well-reasoned proposal. Nothing to suggest this individual is notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - WP:BLP1E. 51 months in prison is enough punishment, there is not need to drag her through the mud with her own article. Recommending this AfD be courtesy blanked at conclusion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:46, 12 October 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.