Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie & Karleigh Santry


 * 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. There is sufficient disagreement about their level of notability that I am happy applying WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, following the tweet from Karleigh. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Katie & Karleigh Santry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a procedural nomination. An anonymous editor PRODed this page with the concern: "This page is about me and I do not want it online anymore." Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, if there is no clear consensus to keep an article, and the subject is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure", then it may be deleted. I'm taking this to AFD to discuss notability, etc. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sorry but anyone can say "This page is about me and I do not want it online anymore" .... My bet is it's an IP simply wanting it deleted "for teh lulz", Anyway Passes GNG so Keep. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  17:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But then again, if we always assume it's an IP wanting deletion "for teh lulz", we may be biting down on those cases where a subject really is uncomfortable with their article. It's better to discuss deletion via the usual process than to summarily ignore it. Mz7 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually very true, - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  17:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't exactly understand how this all works and whatnot, but this was something I did a long time ago and I don't like it showing up on google search. It's embarrassing and I'm uncomfortable. How can I get this fixed and prove that this is Karleigh Santry speaking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.5.89 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per the request below & WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. If we can ascertain that it's Karleigh herself, then I would support deletion.  People shouldn't have to live with embarrassing Wikipedia pages that detail the bad music they were obsessed with as teenagers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the most viable way to ascertain this is to do so on an external website. According to the article, Karleigh Santry has a Twitter account. I suppose if it comes down to it we could ask her to write a tweet... but that may be pushing it too far. I'm not exactly sure what the usual way to approach these requests is. Mz7 (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'd just send a tweet asking I suppose confirmation as all we for know our request via there website could just be ignored ? - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  02:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just posted a message at User talk:76.78.5.89 requesting they post a tweet (or a note on any other external website capable of providing adequate verification.) Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Karleigh Santry just posted this tweet on Twitter. Looks like this confirms this beyond all doubt. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. Mz7 (alt) (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup that's deffo confirmation :) - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. That's good enough for me.  She made a splash a few years ago, but it was nothing so notable that it would make her a public figure. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is Katie Santry and I do not want this page deleted!! it looks great and shows what we have accomplished at such a young age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie santry (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tough shit, We asked for a legitimate confirmation and you gave it.... With all respect you should've thought about that in the first place before requesting deletion.... - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  02:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Now I think this is a random person wanting the article kept "for teh lulz". Note that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep an article, and usernames which implies they are related to a real person are customarily blocked to prevent impersonation. Mz7 (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wondered if it was her sister seemingly unaware ?, They also attempted to change the afd template and blanked the Talkpage as well. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  02:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Reluctant Keep - whatever happened to "notability does not expire"? They were notable in their time, therefore they are notable. BLPREQUESTDELETE does not overwrite that. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  03:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As an online free-content open encyclopedia that is the fourth most-visited website in the world, we must be very sensitive about our articles about living persons. This is one of the principles the WP:BLP policy was founded upon. We must balance our goals as an encyclopedia with our concern for the welfare of living persons. Here, a relatively unknown non-public figure has requested, in good faith, that their page be deleted. Reading the article, it's definitely not one of our best articles, and I could see how it could be embarrassing to the subject. Granted, if we were talking about someone like Justin Bieber, who is a widely known public figure, we would clearly retain the article even if the subject requests deletion. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is a policy formed upon the BLP principle, and on case-by-case bases, WP:COMMONSENSE can and should take over. That's my two cents. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think the subjects of the article have sufficient notability to keep this article against their request.  Under these circumstances, "reluctant keep" doesn't make any sense at all to me.  If we're reluctant to keep it, then we should delete it.  Peacock (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2014 (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.