Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah York


 * 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. Why No Consensus? Because quite a few of the Keep votes are WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:INTERESTING. However the amount of continuing coverage of this person probably pushes them over the notability guidelines; some better sources would be useful though, or another AfD may be necessary in the future. Black Kite 22:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah York

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete nothing to suggest notability. Prod and Prod 2 were removed by anon. Boleyn3 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, lots of reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Events leading to prominence were of sufficient duration and length to survive the usual blp1e scrutiny. Ray  Talk 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable at all. The "lots of reliable sources" mentioned above look to me like a fairly moderate number of sources, many of which make only brief mention of Sarah York, and all of which, as far as I can see, refer to one incident. I totally fail to see how this gets past WP:BLP1E. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, I just heard a story about this person on KCRW and found it fascinating. I went to Google her and found this article. I do not think this should be deleted. People will find her story compelling and there needs to be a place to get the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maberry (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Definite Keep: article could be improved, but the york-noriega saga is notable.--Milowent (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems like a pretty amazing story- lots of coverage including a great story on this american life Walmas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Woogie - reliable sources from 1988 through 2006 indicate ongoing notability. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.107.75 (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes it is only one event, but that one event has generated coverage over a significant period of time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a fascinating, largely relevant event that occuring during the final days of Noriega's regime over Panama. This article should not be deleted and is more than properly sourced. -- acascante1 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson
 * Definitely keep. Important sidelight.  Who knows what will be considered important in coming years?  Sarah herself is not notable, but it was never about her personally.  The event is part of history and illuminates the time.  No need to be too picky with the raw material of history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.156.125 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment By a simple count of the number of editors, "keep" is clearly winning by a long margin. However, looking at the reasons given for "keep", I see a different situation. In fact there are two kinds of reason given:
 * There are such comments as "I just heard a story about this person on KCRW and found it fascinating", "the york-noriega saga is notable" (with no explanation how or why it is notable), "Seems like a pretty amazing story", "This is a fascinating, largely relevant event", and even simply "keep" with no further explanation: none of these addresses the question of evidence of notability.
 * There is the comment "lots of reliable sources" with a link to a Google search page. Certainly there are lots of hits, but we are left to search through them ourselves to find which of them are reliable, which give significant coverage, etc. I find mostly minor mentions, relating only to a single incident. Then there are such comments as "reliable sources" wikilinked to Identifying reliable sources, but no indication at all of what those sources are; "has generated coverage over a significant period of time", but no indication what that "coverage" is.
 * In summary, the "keep" arguments divide into (1) statements that the subject is interesting/significant, but no indication that there are sources to support that, and (2) statements that there are sources, but one of them gives inadequate indication what those sources are, and all the others give no such indication at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability arguments aside (she's not), this article fails WP:BLP1E, a WP:policy. There is no room for interpretation. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, certainly room for interpretation of WP:BLP1E - news coverage was persistent even up to 1992. Here's a small sampling: 1988, 1988, 1889, 1990, 1990, 1992. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 14:34, 28 March 2010 (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.