Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poo Girl


 * 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   Speedy Delete per WP:CSD. A regular delete would have sufficed per WP:BLP1E after 7 das, but this article does little beyond disparage the unfortunate victim of a wholly non-notable embarrassing accident. There is, therefore, no need to let this person suffer for 6 more days.  young  american (wtf?) 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Poo Girl

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

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a news site. Whilst this girl did obtain some coverage in 'oddly enough'-type sections, simply being stuck in faeces, and have a few news sources report this, in my opinion, fails WP:BIO. Computerjoe 's talk 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NOT. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the coverage has only just started, there are various songs appearing on youtube documenting the issue. 70,000 people visit Leeds Festival and future festival go-ers will here about the story and want to find out what happend. 20,000 people have joined the appreication group this incident is a notable event and should be documented. I didn't make the article for the good of my health or a for laugh, it is a notable issue that people will wish to be informed about in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.34.12 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Youtube? Funny. Joe Chill (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is exactly the kind of situation that WP:BLP1E is talking about when it says, "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:BLP1E.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:BLP1E. And.......... . Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that all news articles shouldn't be given encyclopedia entrys, but I maintain that this incident will be famous for  several years with each new generation of festival goers hearing the rumour and wishing to know the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.34.12 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been to the Leeds festival several times and trust me, this is the least interesting thing I've ever heard of happening to anyone. Nobody will care by this time next week.  Lugnuts  (talk)

This was my 5th Leeds festival and I agree I find the whole incident uniteresting but its all my fellow festival go-ers are discusing. I remain convinced that she will be discused in many years to come by 1000's of people and thus deserves an entry in an encylopedia./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.34.12 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete probably speedy delete, at that, if any other admin wants to confirm. This is what BLP1E was written for. I sometimes don't like what I think to be its overextensive use here, but this article is proof that the rule does have a real purpose.  If the meme is actually very highly notable, the article could be written without the personal name at all    DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 5 September 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.