Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Darrell


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Katrina Darrell

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Woman who appeared on American Idol a few days ago in a bikini; not sure how this makes her notable. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Vernon, she has been listed as one of the most searched for topics on Yahoo and Google since she appeared on television. I also feel she is more than just "a woman who appears on tv in a bikini." She has done quite a bit of modeling, singing and has her own fashion line. dwcusc (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, lacks sufficient notability per WP:BIO & WP:ONEEVENT.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral... Delete --one single (silly) event, and she is not likely to make it through the Hollywood session (oops, that was my crystal ball speaking). Drmies (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think we're being narrow-minded that you automatically call for someone's deletion. Have you gentlemen and ladies taken a look at Google Trends to see the spike in search trends for the lady in question? Take a look: http://www.mykatrinadarrell.com/news_googletrends.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcusc (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If she's such a notable and successful person, surely there must be verifiable, independent, in-depth sources that will sustain your argument. Please add those to the article if you have them; please consider also that someone's popularity on Google really doesn't mean a whole lot--esp. considering that she's probably being Googled cause she doesn't know how to dress decently ;) . Drmies (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't wait to see Drmies have to come back and eat his words after the fine work that MQS has done. Oh, such joys in life and I'm not sure I'm worthy for these wonderful blessings!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh... crow? It tastes like chicken. Either she gets more attention over the next few weeks, or she goes back to Hooters. I just think this AfD is a bit premature for someone getting so much press. If she fails, we can always either delete her or merge her.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Merge and Redirect to American Idol (season 8). Here I go again... tilting at windmills. I have done copyedit, minor expansion, and heavy sourcing to the article. She has extensive coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject which surpass the basic criteria of notability for persons. And in acknowledgement of people notable only for one event, and considering the overwhelming coverage of her surpassing the general notability guidelines, a merge to American Idol (season 8) may be indicated. might be a "last resort". Her celebrity "career" is only days old, and if/when it develops further, an expanded article a seperate article may be indicated and the merged informations may be then returned. is a certainty. It's "one event" as of today... but the way she is now being covered, in one week it will be 4 events... and in a month 8 events. The ball is now rolling down the hill and gaining momentum. I predict Letterman and Leno for beginners... and greater and growing notability based upon the recent furor. She will definitely not be a one-trick pony. Wiki has time to see if I am right... and if I am not, then another AfD would handle it and I will sheepishly grant my lack of prescience. But being involved in film and television personally, I can fairly and accurately opine that her "pony" has left the starting gate and is only now entering the first stretch. (Yikes - too many metaphors). Just as I opine at some future film articles that they are a tad premature... so then is this AfD. Premature. For gosh sakes, the article is but hours old.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep For better or worse, she's notable. There are a variety of ways of achieving notability, and she has certain natural endowments that will cause her to continue to make waves after her "stardom" was established on American Idol. The citations are already very substantial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, Childofmidnight and Michael Q. Schmidt, I STILL DON'T LIKE HER! There. (Is there an emoticon where I can stick out my tongue at the both of you?) Nice work, MQS. Good man. Why don't you fix the world? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One article at a time... one article at a time. And thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MQS, very good work and thank you! Some very good sources added.  I did make one minor edit to one of the external links if you don't mind.  There is dispute that www.katrinadarrell.org is her "official site."  This article summarizes it well actually:  http://www.mykatrinadarrell.com/news_katrinadarrellorg.htm.  Some blog entries by the lady in question have stated that she is not the owner and resents the owner is claiming to be her.  So I thought better to remove that site.  Thanks!  Dwcusc (talk  —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Nice. I removed the Dot Org from EL's and replaced it with the Dot com. Good catch.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MQS, I'm sorry, I removed the .com also. That site is owned by an unrelated couple.  She does not yet have an "official" website, only her MySpace page (www.myspace.com/btchsstayh8n).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwcusc (talk • contribs) 09:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ain't gonna sweat it. She's gonna have lots of coverage and an "official' site is assured.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, see WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Commment As the extensive citations make clear, she's not notable for one event. She's notable for participating in the most watched television show in North America. For featuring in the start of the season. For being featured and discussed on lots of other shows and in the news media. For feautring in the advertising for the event. For being discussed as someone who wore a bikini to her audition on the show and passed the first round. I know there is a lot of bias against pop culture, but the extensive citations demonstrating notability are there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - She hasn't got enough buzz to have the article warranted. BUT, if she makes the top 36 (and we will know in about 3 weeks), this will at least have to come back as a redirect (with the extra buzz possibly warranting the article then). For now, I say delete this, but that may change. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's easily enough press coverage to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But that press is for one event, WP:BLP1E. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already more than one event, and she's coming back for round two. You're ignoring all the coverage she's received outside of the episode itself. Look at the large numbers of sources with substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources: (1) She isn't mentioned in the Guardian article by name; (2) she gets a brief mention in a short blog post in the National Ledger article; (3) she has a (partial) one-line mention in the Newsday article; (4) a pretty brief mention in the Journal Sentinel... need I continue? She may be mentioned in those articles in passing, how does that confer notability?  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * She's mentioned in numerous article, and there are several where the title and the substance of the article is wholly or almost wholly about her. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:19, 21 January 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.