Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell (2nd 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. Looking this AfD over, I believe that the arguments noting that the article violated WP:BLP1E were stronger than those arguments of the people arguing to keep the article because of the reliable sources. A crime spree is still one event, not multiple as required to pass BLP1E. In addition, several a few, though by no means all, of the keep votes were remarkably weak. NW ( Talk ) 22:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Kari Ferrell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously deleted article (see here) per BLP. Has consensus changed? Is the article now sufficiently improved? rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ]] 13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe that the page meets criterion 3 for perpetrators under WP:N/CA. The story received major coverage by abc news, as well as local news coverage, and even coverage in China, not to mention extensive tabloid coverage. As a note, the first AfD was prior to the abc news coverage. J04n(talk page) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The addition of ABC news does not satisfy N/CA, and tabloids are worthless to us. To meet N/CA, there needs to be significant independent coverage that displays notability for the crimes. If that's met, you have further criteria to overcome to warrant a biography. She's not otherwise notable, and I don't think there is the significant independent coverage in reliable sources to even warrant an event article. [[User talk:Jennavecia| Lara
 * Keep per J04n. I would prefer to see the revisions prior to the previous AFD, though; as I recall, they were more substantial and better-sourced. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 02:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I voted "keep" in the first AfD (was the original article creator) and although I felt it was closed improperly (4 keeps and 4 deletes and the closing admin did NOT state it was deleted for BLP reasons), I choose not to bring it to DRV. In this case, not only do the in-depth sources in the original article stand like this very substantial article, but the sources created after the last AfD further demonstrate notability of this person.--Oakshade (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This remains to be a textbook example of WP:BLP1E and thus should be removed.  JBsupreme (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This person is not notable for "one event" but a continuous and ongoing series for events.--Oakshade (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She's not really notable for what you suggest. Thank GOD we had the common sense and decency to do the right thing with the Anna Ayala article.  JBsupreme (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the "thank god" factor about someone who attempted commit fraud by planting a severed finger in her chili from Wendy's. Besides, this is a different case and we judge each one individually. --Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He's thanking God because Wikipedia doesn't exist to judge or punish people. He's thanking God because the editors in that discussion understood that. Lara  13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to tell you, but everyone here understands that WP does not exist to judge or punish people. If you think that being on WP is "punishment", this is entirely your own (odd) opinion. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't deny things you don't think are true. In addition to Oakshade's comment, I could go search through AFDs to locate the various comments I've read over the years from editors who believed subjects "deserved" biographies that contained BLP violations and were overly negative and judgmental in tone because of the crimes they've committed. So take your "odd" comment and stick it back in your box for use where appropriate. Lara  22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand now the origin of your comment, but I guess you're misreading Oakshade's semantics. He -with 95% certainity- meant that we judge each inclusion or deletion case by case, not that we judge people case by case. So yes, here the comment was appropriate. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  22:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. Lara  00:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Why is wikipedia going to not provide information about this topic? I wanted to find information about this topic and for some reason wikipedia has some kind of strange bias about this topic. If it's deleted then what? I have to find it information about it elsewhere? Why? It makes no sense to me. I created the article because I saw an article about this individual and wanted to learn more and found nothing on wikipedia. I then saw it had been deleted 4 prior times. I have no affiliation with anything involved with the topic and am not a stakeholder, I just wanted to find out information about Ferrell and was unable to. So I created the article. Please vote to keep. Bjorn Tipling (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's deleted then what? I have to find it information about it elsewhere? - Yes. Lara  13:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? You know it's obvious she's going to get some kind of book deal or do something else after her 9 months in jail are up that will just continue her fame and more and more people will look her up on wikipedia only to find there is no article for god knows what reason. The WP:BLP1E is meant for individuals who were only once involved in a small minor event and were covered in they local newspaper, it's not meant for individuals who garnered extensive tabloid coverage. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC))
 * WP:CRYSTALBALL. Lara  00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Save for who has already participated in this discussion, I have notified the participants of Articles for deletion/Kari Ferrell of this AfD. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of content beyond textbook WP:BLP1E. There is nothing in the article that is not just a summary of primary source material, provided by news reports.  For this person to have an article, more coverage based upon reliable secondary sources (ie commentary on her story, not reporting of her story) would be required.  This doesn't seem to exist, based upon a quick google search.  We should be conservative in covering the continuing stories of living people.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looked again, and still delete. Still don't see anything that is not repetition of primary source material (news reports).  Nobody actually says anything about the woman or her exploits., therefore it is not secondary.  Quite properly, everyone is ignoring the blog commentaries.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G4. This stub doesn't even attempt to create anything resembling a biography. Two sentences strung together that not only fail to establish any sort of encyclopedic notability, but gives the exact reason that the article should not have been created to begin with, much less recreated. Kari Ferrell is an American con-woman who attracted significant tabloid media attention for minor offenses says it all. NOTNEWS covers tabloid garbage; the fact that she's known for nothing but her crimes is BLP1E; the fact that those crimes were so insignificant falls on WP:PERP; and the fact that this article doesn't even attempt to overcome the issues made in the first AFD makes this CSD#G4. Lara  13:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article easily asserts notability by describing the significant coverage the person received. Wikipedia is not a judge as to why reliable sources give significant coverage to somebody, but that the reliable sources do give significant coverage.  Any judging of them is personal POV.--Oakshade (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * She's received a lot of sensationalistic coverage and was a tabloid story for a while. This does not indicate encyclopedic notability. Lara  22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per this encyclopedia's notability guidelines, it does. This isn't Encyclopædia Britannica which has its own guidelines.  --Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I know this article was bigger, so what happened and why was it deleted without consent? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe some of our problems with sparse content&mdash;"two sentences strung together"&mdash;might be resolved by returning to the revisions prior to the first deletion. I do not have the privilege to do so; is there an administrator in the house? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncertain: Judging from the present article, it would be a textbook example of BLP. But the earlier article was very much fuller, and I see no reason not to restore it, since the BLP material in it had sources.  I'm not sure why this version was the one restored, since it contains the statement clearly prejudicial to notability ", the pinnacle of which was gaining a small job at Vice Magazine in New York City."  Actually, the pinnacle of her career seems more likely  to have been getting on the Salt Lake City Most Wanted List.   The easiest way for the moment to show the material will be cut-and-paste, since there's a unique item in the new version also. If kept, it can be properly merged later. Minor crimes, but although I !voted delete last time, saying "small crimes, small coverage", I think there just might be enough material
 * I urge those who !voted before this and saw only the new article take another look.   DGG' ( talk ) 15:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring content from the earlier revisions, DGG. I have integrated it with Bjorn's material. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, the sources clearly demonstrate notability. Everyking (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources show notability; not just in the news once, she's an alleged criminal with a national crime spree who attracted Intrenet and tabloid attention. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sourced and covered, seems just enough above the threshold. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I said in a previous one, this still comes back to one event to me. A crime spree is an event, not a collection of individual acts that people can call "multiple events". And I am of the school of thought that just because the some of the news media has a fascination with the odd or unusual, that might make it newsworthy, but newsworthy doesn't always mean notable. Since the vast majority of any coverage is centered right around the event or trial, it gives the appearence of being just news rather than notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. She is just as non-notable as last time. Some smaller cons does not make a person important enough for Wikipedia. There are a lot of news articles, but sometimes the news cover things that are not actually important but just funny stories. This shouldn't be taken too far: Paris Hilton is notable regardless of what anyone might think of her achievements. Kari Ferrel is just a one-time strange story. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These are actually arguments to keep. It is the editorial decisions of reliable sources to decide what topics are notable, not Wikipedia editors.  Sometimes funny, stupid or nonsensical things are notable.  We're not in a position to say "Reliable sources are wrong."  We don't decide what is notable, "the world" does. --Oakshade (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, using judgment to decide what to include is part of making an encyclopedia. Letting the tabloids decide for us does not make a better encyclopedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I count seven verifiable and reliable citations from six reliable sources, including the New York Observer, which is a reliable source and a tabloid. Tabloid newspapers—the Daily News, Boston Herald, Chicago Sun-Times, The Times (of London), and Newsday, as examples—are reliable sources, unless one is talking about something worse than the National Inquirer. I'm not including Gawker, since I haven't checked them out yet. Oakshade is correct as to notability being determined by RS, not us. — Becksguy (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel using personal judgment is the proper method to decide content and your personal judgment is that there should not be an article of this topic, that's fine. But Wikipedia has notability guidelines that lay out inclusion standards for this encyclopedia so topics are not subject to editors personal subjective opinions. --Oakshade (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the reliability of the sources or the truth of the article. I don't think The Times is a tabloid though, and I did not mean the paper size. I am saying that not everything in the papers is important (notable) enough for Wikipedia. Good judgment is not making stuff up willy-nilly. Trying to turn editing Wikipedia into a robotic task is not a good idea. Your last link is a user essay that in my opinion is wrong on many points. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The NY Observer feature on her as Oakshade mentioned in both AfDs and in the article is compelling. The ABC piece is clearly more than a mention. Also the other RS listed, including SLC Tribune and CBS.  They are clearly multiple, independent, non-trivial, and reliable sources, per WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. I don't see how this could be characterized as one event, as it's clearly many events comprised of different alleged crimes, and in different cities. It therefore fails WP:BLP1E as a delete rationale.  Keep per Oakshade, J04n, Bearian, and others. — Becksguy (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I know this !vote may seem odd coming from me, but I tend to be deletionist on articles like these. My personal view is that to be notable, a person has to do something that is notable in the first place, regardless of whether there happen to be 1,2, or 10 findable references--unless it becomes a really major meme of at least national significance. The news sources here, though major and reliable, are local to the events.    But if the consensus is that we are still using coverage in RS as an over-riding indication of notability, this would be kept.  When I came here I too would have said keep, on the basis that major newspapers are  better able to determine notability than we are--having much more experience with stories like these by now, I am not so sure at all. There is also the consideration of BLP do no harm, in our recording a minor though extensive criminal career. I tend to take things like murder as intrinsically more serious, though articles on murderers -- even multiple murderers--without something widespread coverage do tend to get deleted here, again using the same RS standard. Maybe I see it upside down, but that's how I see it.    DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: As the nominator this time around I didn't want to give comment one way or the other until other people had had their say, but I cannot see how this woman is a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. News agencies and police services release reports on criminals every day. That's their stock and trade so we can expect that there will be reliable sources to support the claims made in the article. That is not however "notability" WTR an encyclopedia (which is different to "newsworthy" WRT a newspaper, for example). If there were books or wider discussion of her and her crime, it would be different, but we cannot have an article on every street-corner mugger and shyster just becaue the police have a file on them and a newspaper does a report on their arrest. If the crime is not notable then its hard to see how the criminal is. Delete. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Meets notability. BLP1E does not apply since tthere has been extensive coverage over not a single event but a series of criminal acts. Claims that there is simply "newspaper coverage' are inaccurate in that the individual has been covered by magazines as well. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment and national network news coverage. J04n(talk page) 17:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Scope and quality of references sufficient as per WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CooperDB (talk • contribs) 17:23, 20 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.