Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle McMullen


 * 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. L Faraone  00:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Michelle McMullen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I just declined a PROD for this article. she has some limited notability, but not so little as to be a clear deletion w/o some discussion. article of course is poorly written, not a criteria for deletion. the argument for keep may be around the uniqueness of the story. I am really not sure, but suspect she isnt notable enough. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  02:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not sure if there is such a thing as WP:NOTTRUECRIME, but there needs to be. Or call it WP:BLP1E. Or call it "not an encyclopedia-worthy topic." Carrite (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment If she is not convicted yet, she doesnt even qualify as a noted criminal, and being a suspect in a crime is not reason enough for an article, unless their status as a suspect is so overwhelmingly notable, like Richard Jewell.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PERP.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRIME - A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article - →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  22:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete; the subject of this AfD has received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, and thus passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. That being said the subject received this significant coverage based on the event which is a crime, therefore it can be argued that the subject falls under WP:BLP1E, and it would be the event not the individual which is notable. Furthermore, the subject of the AfD, is a biography article and thus maybe judged for notability by WP:PERP, which the subject does not appear to pass. Therefore, as the subject has passed GNG, but fails PERP there are two potential outcomes that abide with the guidelines. 1)Redirect and rename so that the article is about the event, or 2)Delete the article. I am of the present opinion that deletion is the best option at this time. If the event receives continuing in-depth coverage I can understand recreation of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2013 (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.