Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jo Buttafuoco (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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mary Jo Buttafuoco
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reason for her to have her own article. She is notable for a single event, that is, being the victim of a crime. The references are all centered around her husband. She apparently wrote a book about being a victim of the crime as well, but that does not create notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  19:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  20:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep She wrote a book. She's being receiving coverage for the past 25 years - including her decision to stay with her husband. She's been the subject of coverage - e.g. -        . So yes - she's risen to the limelight for being a victim. But she didn't fade away - she's stayed in the limelight and continued generating coverage of her life - meeting WP:GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A lot of that seems like tabloid coverage. But my main issue is 'why' does she need her own article when it could more easily and sensibly be covered in a single article? ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tabloidy perhaps, though cbs and abc would perhaps dispute that, still establishes notability. She has been covered as a subject in her post victim life.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Redirecting to the other two subjects in the case would be the wrong direction in this case; agreed per Icewhiz that she has established her own notability. Unfortunately it's natural that this is going to contain tabloid coverage by design.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep- She is more than just a victim; WP:1EVENT does not apply. But it would be useful to describe more her writing career in the lead.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs more rewriting, but as the other editors mentioned, she is notable for more than just the incident. I've added more sources, including reviews of her book. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it pretty unpractical to describe her skills as an author in the article of her husband. She's notable for her reactions on that crime, and her actions shouldn't be explained in the biography of another person. Also, I had reverted the redirect of the nominator a few days ago because he completely left out what she's done to restore her face etc. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep She has established her notability, maybe a little bit more of her writing career should be covered in the article.--ClrView (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's lots of coverage. Agricola44 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. She was infamous, and is still infamous. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability doesn't expire.  158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Even though she has been subject of "passing mention" in a lot of sources, in a lot of other sources she has received significant coverage. Being the gunshot victim, and author excludes her from one event; even if we consider the motivational speaker as non notable/trivial. As another editor stated above, she has been receiving coverage since almost 25 years (for some reason or another). Also, she is attractive, and has a funny last name lol (just kidding). — usernamekiran (talk)  20:31, 31 August 2017 (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.