Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Starr


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Jessica Starr

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With all due respect to the departed soul. I do not find the subject meeting WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. All of the coverage available online are about her recent death. WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS also apply. Hitro talk 19:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not finding any coverage other than of the suicide, and some of those articles are really about the risks of lasik. Honestly I hope we delete before her family discovers she's got a Wikipedia page, and then discovers that it's been deleted. They don't need that. valereee (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete — Out of respect more than anything else. This is an easy one event violation and Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, and her death, while tragic, doesn't change that. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  08:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge or something Makes sense as an example in LASIK (which currently doesn't mention suicide at all), but less so as a standalone meterologist bio. Then again, Dick Fletcher's reference list looks a lot like hers (two morbid, one independent), which shouldn't matter per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but kind of does. Maybe delete them both? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment The incident is notable, but the person is not. I propose that the pertinent details about the incident be transferred to a new article about the incident while this article is deleted. NoCOBOL (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I like 's suggestion; despite the non-notability of the subject itself (meteorologist articles on Wikipedia already corner the market in peacock content), this is the first time I've ever heard of suicide being a potential factor of LASIK side effects. However, a standalone article about the incident, regardless of subject notability, would fall under WP:NOTNEWS. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  19:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This whole incident violates the not news guidelines. Her death was covered as a news event, although only that because of navel gazing in the news industry. I had never heard of her until she died, and as a Detroit resident have a good sense of major figures in our area. She was not such by any stretch of the imagination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but how very, very sad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WJBK or delete - not independently notability, but could be pointed to the channel she was working at at the time of coverage about her --DannyS712 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge LASIK risks are indeed now a trending topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim1868 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 December 2018 (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.