Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isabella V (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 delete. — freak([ talk]) 07:59, Dec. 16, 2006 (UTC)

Isabella V

 * — (View AfD)

Deletion decision by a prior (2nd) AfD was overturned at deletion review and is now back for a third time. Please let's not make this the next GNAA, overwise I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 08:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-encyclopedic. metaspheres 09:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete savidan(talk) (e@) 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely we keep all real or possibly not real characters who allegedly might or might not have done something Unless at least one faint iota of this can be verified somehow, and shown to be the sort of thing which would pass the 100 years test (would it pass the 100 days test?) Deeleet is in the house. Grutness...wha?  10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Grutness. We don't need an article on every blogger, internet 'personality' and webcam exhibitionist out there. Unless this can be somehow verified, and asserts some sort of importance, it doesn't belong. riana_dzasta 12:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Grutness. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete for the third time with extreme prejudice. Take your choice: nonnotable hoax, fictional person failing WP:WEB and WP:BIO, or real person failing WP:BIO. Even at least one of the sources derides the "legitimacy" of so-called Isabella V. It doesn't even qualify as an Internet meme.B.Wind 06:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, meets the various standards due to the amount of verifiable information available concerning the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Minor fan base. Stompin&#39; Tom 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominater, B.Wind and Grutness--John Lake 19:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a web "thing," it meets WP:WEB.  As a person, real or imaginary, it meets WP:BIO.  The press coverage listed in the article shows this, so the notability and verification exists.  I'm very, very curious as to what policy/guideline people are working off of here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeff, a simple question: is Isabella V a real person, a hoax, or a meme, based on your research of the subject? B.Wind 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A little of all three, from the looks of it. That's what makes it a compelling subject, and most of the reason why it's notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your answer makes no sense... and it simply reflects the reason that the specious article should be deleted. It doesn't tell the reader who/what this so-called person actually is. Similarly, since you've been following it from the beginning, apparently, and can't say specifically what Isabella V is, I must presume that such specific information is not available in any form, much less via reliable sources. Thus no matter how an interpretation of WP:V is stretched, she cannot be verified as either real, hoax, or a piece of web fiction. This returns to my contentions in both here and the previous AfD, and cannot sustain a keep from me. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article that would otherwise be deleted.B.Wind 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I never heard of it before the DRV. As for sources, it has plenty, and if you took a look at them, you'd understand my position better. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in the spirit of WP:IAR because I can't see how this contributes to being a better encyclopedia. We've spilled far more editor time and bits in discussing the one sentence article.  If it was really significant, someone would have written an actual article.  GRBerry 02:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been too busy fighting over inclusion to actually write an "actual article." If people weren't so quick to ignore policy/guideline, e might not have to worry as much. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:46, 16 December 2006 (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.