Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Bloom


 * 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 16:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Bloom

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

NN college student/climber. Main assertion of notability is that she died relatively young in a climbing accident. Fails WP:BIO and WP is not a memorial. Very few of the external links are about her, and only sources are death notices from local and college newspapers. "Nicole Bloom" michigan gets around 120 Ghits. Booshakla 22:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the notability is just barely enough. The coverage by her student newspaper and local newspaper verifies that the accident happened, and the dedication by the Nature Conservancy shows that, three years later, somebody still cares.  I took out the irrelevant links.  YechielMan 01:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Look at WP:BIO more closely, does she meet any of it? Not even close.  College students die all the time, and memorials are up for just about anyone.  This is not even close to being notable.  Booshakla 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. A couple of points need to be clarified. First, what consitutes a "non-trivial" publication?  We articles from a student paper and an unaffiliated local paper.  Also, what is a newsworthy event?  A hiking accident may or may not be newsworthy, depending on factors such as where it occurred.  Third, what is the relevance of the biographical material?  You see it as a memorial, but maybe it's appropriate context for the accident and the Nature Conservancy memorial.  To some extent, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, because by a strict reading of the rules it should be deleted.  However, I'm leaning more toward a "no consensus" approach. YechielMan 05:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. as clearly not passing WP:BIO, as there are only two articles published by a (very local) independent source about her demise (which, incidentally, has been pulled). I would also cite WP:NOT. Perhaps she would have gone far had she not met with the mishap, but WP:CRYSTAL would enter into play here. Ohconfucius 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think YechielMan makes a nontrivial argument regarding WP:BIO.  However, this is too much of a memorial article, so I think the NOT MEMORIAL policy, cited by Ohconfucius should apply.-- Kubigula (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's just too borderline when it comes to WP:BIO. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:57, 3 February 2007 (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.