Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemma Barker


 * 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 I have boldly moved to Gemma Barker case per usual naming policies) Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gemma Barker

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable, fails WP:NNEWS MacAddct1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 22:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the television programme about her is now receiving critical newspaper reviews, which discuss the broader background. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. As a crime, it fails WP:EVENT and most of its subsections. As a criminal, the subject fails WP:PERP. While an argument can be made that this subject passes WP:GNG on the basis a plethora of two large spikes of tabloid reports, as well as the "documentary" and a few international mentions, I believe the WP:NOTNEWS clause trumps: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Although one of the victims has "waved her right to anonymity", I have some BLP concerns in the mention of an underage victim of sexual assault. Location (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A truly bizarre case which has generated a serious amount of press coverage and one hour-long television programme, although a scrappy article at present which could do with improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree, improvements needed not deletion. press coverage and television programme made.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable event/case. --Vic49 (talk)  23:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A highly unusual situation which may be indicative, and alarming, of our growing societal reliance on virtual presences and relationships vs. real life. It needs more fleshing out with verified detail and updating as and when required.
 * Keep Seems to have enough reliable sources.Article can be improved.  TheStrike  Σagle   04:07, 14 August 2012 (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.