Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karla LaVey


 * 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 keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Karla LaVey


Person is of insufficient significance to merit an entire article. Person in question is a local radio DJ and relative of a more famous person but not a famous person herself. Lvthn13 07:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia policy on notability. This individual does not qualify under the Wikipedia standards as a notable person, and the article itself has never advanced beyond being a stub. Additionally, the article for her organization should be given the same consideration and is likewise a stub. -Lvthn13 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You can only vote once.
 * I did not intend this to be a second vote, but only my vote as opposed to the official nomination. -Lvthn13 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Compare to other articles in this category for notability. User:Yy-bo 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm concerned that this nomination may not be being made entirely in good faith as the nominator is presently involved in the following dispute. However, if I'm misinterpreting this (I read it as a way to win the dispute about the use of the category by deleting the articles the editor does not wish it applied to) then I am happy to discuss Karla LaVey's notability.  Dina 18:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand how it looks this way, but actually that discussion only drew my attention to this article in the first place. If this article is not deemed worthy of deletion, then so be it. -Lvthn13 19:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I'll grant you the good faith but I'll have to disagree with the nom. The correct spelling of her name gets 15,200 Ghits most of which seem to be about her.  Variants get another bundle.  There's apparently some dispute within Satanism over her fathers will and her splinter group church First Satanic Church.  The article needs work, and the controversies need to be explored in the article.  And I know as an outsider to this I find this information that is new to me utterly fascinating is not a criteria for a keep.  But I think she passes WP:BIO with the various articles about her, her church founding, in addition to being Anton LaVey's daughter. Dina 22:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It would appear that a large number of the google search results are cursory mentions of her as a relative of Anton LaVey, though I will grant that there are a number that appear to be specific mentions of her. However, a google search for a college professor of mine got over 2,000,000 hits and the top 50 results which I browsed are almost all mentions of her specifically, but she hardly qualifies as a notable person by Wiki standards.  So I can admit that there is public documentation on Karla LaVey, but whether this constitutes anything significant enough to merit an encyclopedic entry is another matter.  I also feel like her organization is perhaps not of any realistic significance except as a minor footnote of the CoS, but I do not feel like I should discuss that for POV reasons.  I am acting in good faith here, there are plenty of articles about people I do not like or agree with that I nevertheless think merit an article, but Karla is not one of them. -Lvthn13 01:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Karla LaVey is the head of First Satanic Church which holds numerous annual events in San Francisco. Ms. LaVey is a regular contributor to Fox News as well as MSNBC for Satanism/Occult/Paranormal topics. A LexisNexis search will reveal many interviews from Ms. LaVey in addition to a notable amount of attention given to her organization, events and speaking engagements. I think the notion of a deletion, on this topic, by this user, is questionable at best. Absinthe 02:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This user has said here that he/she is a personal acquaintance of Karla LaVey, leading to a possible conflict of POV and bias. The article considered for deletion does not link to or source any specific articles about Karla LaVey or by her, but only makes a broad unsourced statement that she has made public appearances (it does mention appearances on documentaries on Satanism, but in neither of those was she discussed, but only appeared onscreen briefly).  If there is a notable amount of attention given to this person, it has not been borne out by sources and especially by the article as it stands.  The burden is not to prove that someone is not notable but to prove that they are notable, which has not been done.


 * As for my own neutrality, I have written and contributed to Wikipedia articles for some time, and in that time I've been involved in disagreements, all of which were satisfactorily resolved by mutual understanding and discussion. I have never shown resistance to making appropriate concessions nor have I showed bias by consistently removing "unfavorable" comments when they are properly sourced, and I certainly have not endeavored to remove the name of any notable figure where relevant.  My actions here are in good faith, and I am not nominating a well-written full length article for deletion, I am nominating an article with minimal content about a person of questionable notability.  The best way to resolve this is clearly by having this discussion now, which is why I have brought this nomination. -Lvthn13 02:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with your statement that The burden is not to prove that someone is not notable but to prove that they are notable. In Afd I believe the burden of proof is on the nominator.  Dina 09:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It is impossible to prove a negative. However, in the absence of good evidence that she is notable, we must believe that she is not and therefore the meaning of my statement should be clear.  Yes, I believe I should justify the nomination, but I cannot prove it.  It can be proven that a person meets Wikipedia notability standards, so there is where the proof has to lie.  The best I can offer is to ask "Where is the proof?"  So far, I really see none. -Lvthn13 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per absinthe. If all the information in the article is correct then she seems very notable  Canadian - Bacon  t  c   e 03:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The person doesn't have a notability that warrants its own Wikipedia entry.  You could just as well add the few sentences about her to the Anton LaVey bio page.  To make an analogy here, there's a man named Louis Osbourne who is also a DJ, has made media appearances, and is the first son of a famous male celebrity and his previous wife (namely Ozzy Osbourne and his first wife Thelma), but there's no need for a Louis Osbourne page when a sentence or two on the Ozzy Osbourne page will do. WillieBlues 21:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I might agree with you if this person wasn't a.) the head of a religious organization and b.) a subject of interest in various documentaries, cable news segments, books and interviews for her own accomplishments. I don't think your analogy draws appropriate parallels with regard to notability. Absinthe 22:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment She didn't found any religion though, and was not the subject of any documentary, she merely got her face in. Being vaguely mentioned as a relative to a famous person again does not make you validly famous yourself, nor does a few television appearances (I've done television interviews, but I don't need a Wikipedia page).  She's not authored any books, either.  I believe the above analogy is excellent, and I likewise agree that Karla does merit mention on the Anton LaVey page but not particularly her own page.  She is, to be very blunt, a footnote. -Lvthn13 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Nobody is claiming she founded a religion. Simply that she is certainly a person of interest within the media, the Satanic community, as well as the city of San Francisco. One has to ask themselves why you are so intent on seeing this entry deleted considering that you contribute so devoutly to an entry of a person of very similar background (read: Peter H. Gilmore). Could there perhaps be an issue of good faith here, considering that you are obviously affiliated with a rival organization?


 * My only point is that it is crystal clear that Ms. LaVey is a person of interest among various topics, and that having an entry would serve to quickly summarize who she is and what functions she serves in the public eye. This deletion nomination is somewhat disheartening with regard to the issue of good faith within the Wikipedia community. One only needs to look at the exchange here to see the motivation for your nomination. Absinthe 05:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems to me a much greater issue of good faith that you're more intent on attacking my character than on improving the existing articles. You bring up articles that are not related and most of your comments here have included an ad hominem attack on me.  This does not prove anything about Karla LaVey or her article and is a red herring.  You're not making it crystal clear that Karla is notable because you're not providing sources or solid evidence that she meets the Wikipedia standards of notability, you only insist that she is.  If this were such an obvious issue of good faith, why would the vote presently be split as to whether this article should remain?  Were it so obvious that this article belongs I should not imagine this would be the case.  Further, the very discussion you have linked to indicates, again, that you are a personal acquaintance of Karla LaVey.  In all good faith, I should think that if you know her so well it should be an easy matter to provide ample real evidence that she is notable rather than merely saying so.  I suggest that attempting to shoot down this nomination through me rather than refute it legitimately is a negative tactic. -Lvthn13 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The image from Fox News does not provide proof that Karla LaVey is a notable figure. For example, I've been interviewed by BBC, but I'm not notable.  Also, see this http://afpf.sfproductions.net/uploads/Express2006/tim%20on%20fox%20news.jpg

Why do I bring up this link? Because the person in question is clearly visible on Fox News, is credited as president of an organization, and has web results that mention him, but probably none of us know who the fellow is and he doesn't have a Wikipedia article as a result. Just getting on the news doesn't make you notable.

Further evidence should be apparent in the fact that this very debate hasn't exactly generated a storm of interest. Were Karla LaVey an especially notable person, you'd think her page would generate enough traffic and be on enough watchlists that more people would be chiming in one way or another. Very few have, especially for the "head of a religious organization" of supposed notability, a topic you'd think would arouse considerable interest in her followers. I reiterate, Karla LaVey is a footnote to the life of Anton LaVey.

Also, the image of Karla LaVey does not contain a copyright tag. It must contain said tag to remain on Wikipedia. -Lvthn13 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Absinthe, notable as the head of an internationally reknown church. RFerreira 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Karla LaVey is a very recognizable person within the world of Satanism and the occult. 4.243.239.5 20:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Absinthe, head of the Satanic Church is most assuredly notable. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Absinthe. She is apparently the "go-to" quote source for a major news network as an expert in her area. Though as a comment, I don't think images in AfD is needed. If the image is in the article then we'll see when we review the article.  Agne 18:11, 8 September 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.