Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talia Castellano


 * 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. The volume of coverage is indisputable and existed before her death, so even if we ignore the significance of the coverage about her death, it cannot be said that she is only notable because of her death or is only a blip in the news. Deletion arguments are otherwise largely assertions that the subject was not important or did not accomplish anything, but with GNG satisfied the presumption of notability governs and results in "keep" absent a consensus to rebut that presumption. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Talia Castellano

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a place for a person who only became notable for her death. Just because her death was announced on a lot of news sites does not make her a notable-enough girl to appear on Wikipedia. Now, there could probably be more news sources on this girl other than about her death that I don't know of, but if there aren't any, this should be covered on Wikinews instead of here. Editor E  at ma talk page up, scotty! 21:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  Note from nominator . I have also request that this page be protected due to some recent vandalism on this page. Editor  E  at ma talk page up, scotty! 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: please provide reasons for your decision and not a simplistic justification like "no consensus". Thank you, WWGB (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Passing WP:GNG should not be sufficient? It would be instead time that those who want the article deleted give a valid reason for deletion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cavarrone 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

— Kellinnta (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Featured twice on Ellen (TV series), reported on before her death at CBS . Article needs expansion, not deletion. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So why don't you add the knowledge you got from her TV appearances to the article. Could it be that there wasn't much to it apart from the fact she was dying and had a YouTube page?Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, seconded Same reasons as above. She was also featured in magazines, as stated in the article, and other media prior to her death. --Lilduff90 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, thirded Everything mentioned above, to me, makes this article notable. ThunderPower (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, fourth Should we remove Terry Fox too? People can be known for anything, actors are "only" known for acting, what's so great about that? I can point to countless people listed on Wikipedia with less information on them than this inspirational girl, and she's made headlines around the world. It would get ugly if she was removed just because some people don't think she's "notable" enough considering there's so many others listed on Wiki that are so unnotable that they don't even get flagged for their one line blip of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellinnta (talk • contribs)
 * Delete She is described as a "make-up artist". She was a school child. Anyone can have a YouTube channel these days. It does not make one a person of note who should feature in an encyclopedia. Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with your argument word by word, but how it is related with the current case? The article about her was not created in reason of her being a school child or her running a YouTube channel (otherwise speedy_deletion via A7 would apply) but in reason of the coverage she received, during and after her life. We can discuss if it is enough to justify a claim of notability, but clearly she was not a random young girl who run a YouTube channel, I run one but I have not received such coverage nor I was put on the cover of a notable magazine nor I appeared multiple times in a notable show (nor I have the quite impressive number of 39 million views!). Cavarrone 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I clarified this in the article and will put it here: CoverGirl is not a magazine. —  Wylie  pedia  10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete A kid got a little famous on youtube, she dies, so we create an article, I hope not. Nottruelosa (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC) vote struck as editor was indefinitely blocked, and also an offensive rationale here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Lets not set a precedence. Yes over half a million google hits and appeared on the  cover of an American magazine but still not notable..--Stemoc (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Precedence" of having article on people who have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources thus passing WP:GNG as this person easily has, has already be set many years ago. If a person passes WP:GNG base originally on youtube videos, they pass WP:GNG whether anyone likes that fact or not. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - BIO1E. Biographical articles are designed to be for people who are notable in their own right.  Subject is only "famous" due to her cancer (otherwise she'd be a kid with a YouTube channel), and I'd say that "having a YouTube channel" is a stretch.  If she was so famous, why did she have to die before an article was created, and why are the only sources obituaries? We seem to have a rash of "somebody died and made the news, let's write a stub" articles as of late, though this has  been a pervasive problem on WP for years.MSJapan (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously not a BIO1E and the only sources of the article are not just obituaries. If you care to make a search you will find bunches of articles about her published during her life, and enough material for a good article. Cavarrone 22:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Sophie Grace & Rosie were YouTube "sensations", recurred on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and still aren't notable enough to have an article. Neither is this girl. —  Wylie pedia  01:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I have no idea about who Sophie Grace & Rosie are, but not having (yet) an article is not a proof of non-notability for Talia Castellano, nor it means that Sophie Grace & Rosie are not-eligible for an article. It depends how much significant coverage in reliable sources they received, if their status of Internet celebrities is verifiable etc. Cavarrone 06:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, notability not established, agree with comments above especially Williamgeorgefraser. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot of people fail WP:ANYBIO, you are moving to nominate for deletion Lee Harvey Oswald or Paul Rudd for failing ANYBIO? ANYBIO is an additional criterium for those who fail WP:GNG and are indeed notable in their field. Cavarrone 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Sad event, but there's not much notability here as these kinds of 'dying child has dreams come true' stories happen regularly. WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This person was notable before her death, internationally for that matter.  WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply as that is for people who did not receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as this person has, ie, someone's beloved grandpa.   WP:GNG is not about how someone became notable, but if someone is notable.  WP:BIO1E clearly states it is for "low profile" individuals which this person was not. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it doesn't warrant a WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but the only reason she was given so much "media coverage" was not because of her achievements but because of her "disease", hate to agree with the banned trolled whose vote was struck off but the fact of the matter is, had she not being sick, she would not have gotten any media coverage, there are 100's of people her age on youtube adn some with similar problems and as i said earlier, lets not set a precedence, we don't want people using this article as an example to add similar articles in the future. She is notable to a smaller degree as as semi important internet celebrity but honestly, just not at a degree where we can say she deserves to be listed on wikipedia.--Stemoc (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have to like the reasons she became notable, but she became notable per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG nonetheless. --Oakshade (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

— IngridsLittleAngel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — 205.206.225.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep If we are going to start removing Wikipedia pages solely because the person became famous because of their death, explain having a page for Ronald Goldman. If a person shouldn't have a page because they became famous for being terminally ill, maybe someone should flag Ryan White's for deletion. And is Perez Hilton famous for anything besides running a celebrity gossip blog? All three of those people have Wikipedia pages. Maybe I see this from a different perspective, as a heavy participant in Relay For Life, but I saw just how much impact Talia had upon cancer survivors. She really and truly was an inspiration for so many fighting the disease. To try to dismiss her as a "YouTube star", or as someone famous for their illness or death, truly diminishes what she did during her all-too-brief time on Earth, and what she meant to a lot of people. Keep the page - both because it's the right thing to do, and to remove it would create a real double-standard. IngridsLittleAngel (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Ditto for above. Thinking of deleting it for the above reasons is just sad and deplorable. What is this world coming to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.225.252 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryan White was the poster child for HIV/AIDS, a disease which to this day remains incurable, Ronald Goldman on his own is not notable but he is linked to one of the biggest trials in history. Perez was an average blogger once but his popularity grew and as such became notable enough for inclusion in time..I'm not sure how appearing in magazines and talking about your illness is actually "doing something"?. There was this Tongan girl with a similar problem, Tae Kami, she also had cancer, she wanted to be a singer and she was diagnosed with a rare cancer of the jaw, after her death her family set up a "Walk on Walk Strong" foundation (a song she wrote and sang) to raise money for other cancer patients in the Pacific Region and even she is not notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. I'm just giving an example...notability requirements are such on wikipedia. This isn't a "popularity contest" so its probably not a wise idea to get other people to come here from probably facebook and fight her articles' inclusion on wikipedia... Wikipedia generally accepts only opinions from actual members, if you want to be part of wikipedia and comment here, create an account.--Stemoc (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Though, I thought this discussion was about the page, and not me. But, pleased now? IngridsLittleAngel (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep She passed WP:GNG and WP:ENT even before her death, as the same sources of the article (plus the coverage listed above) show. Defining her as "a person who only became notable for her death" is misleading. Cavarrone 05:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep News of her death has appeared in the New York Daily News, Los Angeles Times, NPR, The Huffington Post, Enterainment Weekly, ABC News CBS News, and over 100 other news sites. All cited more than just her death.  During her lifetime, stories about her appeared on many of these sites, and on others. If all of these news sources considered her notable enough to run stories while she was alive and of her death, how can we declare that she isn't notable?Tom Barrister 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)
 *  Comment on this argument from nominator . Okay, well could you at least list all these sources you found? Editor  E  at ma talk page up, scotty! 16:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The argument behind the individual only being notable because of their death, is absolutely repugnant. As sources have demonstrated, the individual passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT; as articles have detailed her past, and in particular 'internet personality' status. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep She has received internation press coverage. --Racklever (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  Comment on this argument from nominator . Okay, well, could you put what "internation[al] press coverage" you found instead of just saying he has it? Editor  E  at ma talk page up, scotty! 16:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A two second search, comes up with coverage from the United Kingdom, even Australia. Her appearances on Ellen, suffice the term "international" considering that the show is shown globally. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Chili, Peru, All during her lifetime, about diffrent things, like plans to start a new clothing-line with upcoming fashion star Urbana Chappa, but also about things like going to hospital etc. Rutger Colin Kips, the Netherlands37.251.15.236 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait We went through this last year with Ben Breedlove - this is simply not a good time to be discussing deletion. Give the coverage time to play out and we'll see whether the article meets GNG in a year or so. There's no way to reach any kind of consensus right now. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Fence I understand what both sides are saying, but I am torn both ways. On the one hand, we support articles for such things as the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month (and this is not a moral argument I am making). Most of those models (and I am not saying all) will only end up in their life as famous for that one thing that may or may not be beyond their control. And every single one of them have an article. And yet here is a person who appears on the cover of an equally famous magazine CoverGirl who instead of having looks has cancer. That is a tough double standard to enforce. My concern is that the notoriety is fleeting, but by that same standard, arent the Bunnys? I dont know. Will think about it for a bit.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My vote is Keep, Keep and Keep. I repeated myself because #1. She is obviously notorious when her death was covered on every news program in the USA, and #2, I am the Naseem Hamed of Wikipedia. Antonio Seem the Prince Martin, Loser's talk 08;18, 17 July, 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Article need expansion, not deletion. If subject is memetized i(2011, http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/talia-joy) it's definitely worth article. Serg3d2 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

undefined tausif ( talk )  12:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait/Keep I agree with User:Bienfuxia. This discussion is a bit early to have.


 * Keep Talia was a girl who inspired thousands of people (not in the least very young people like herself) to keep a positive outlook on their lives despite the their own sorrows (whatever they may be). I am a cancer-patient myself, living half way across the globe from Talia, and I will be eternally grateful to have seen (and be inspired by) the limitless positivity of Talia. In this manner this girl has undoubtedly helped many (young) people around the globe cope with their own (terminal) illnesses in a positive way.
 * Now some of you may say that if she touched thousands of people their hearts, that does not constitute a lot of notability. I would like to ask those people how many hearts one is supposed to touch in order to be?? To reach so many people worldwide in only thirteen years is an accomplishment many a world-famous star won't be able to better!
 * I sincerely hope that Talia will be allowed to keep inspiring young people, and that wikimedia will continue to offer this article as a portal into Talia's unlimited love and strength!
 * Therefore: expand, not delete!
 * Rutger Colin Kips, the Netherlands37.251.15.236 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

— 37.251.15.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 *  Comment on this argument from nominator . Okay. Thanks for letting us know that she was a very important person to a lot of people, but could you still focus on the notability with independent sources please, instead of saying a WP:ILIKEIT arguemnt? Thank you. Editor  E  at ma talk page up, scotty! 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a few international mainstream news sources above, where you asked for them, this was all during lifetime. Her death gets reported at least in all of the countries mentioned there, as well as in most other European and Latin-American countries. Rutger Colin Kips, The Netherlands 37.251.15.236 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Known celebrity who has appeared on national talk shows. We have other precedents mentioned in this deletion discussion. Article needs some serious work.  --Zerbey (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In spite of all the arguments about keeping this article, I don't see many or any of the "Keep" brigade adding anything of note about her life. Rather than argue against deletion, surely it is better to turn the article into one that people want to read. However, for the moment, it is still a stub and will forever more remain one.Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, sad story, but not notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just "not notable"? Care to explain how someone who has received significant in-depth coverage in both life and death, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY is "not notable"? --Oakshade (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Notable for what?, being ill and appearing on Ellen? 100's of less important people have appeared on her show, should we start making articles for all of them? media also "magnifies" children who have died either via abuse or murder, we don't go around creating articles for them, if this was some 40 year old woman who had died of cancer, would anyone have cared enough to make her an article?...Lets not let our emotions get the better, she doesn't  merit notability--Stemoc (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - even though this is a 100% "americanized" story of the poor cute girl that dies of cancer.. i guess she is notable as her death has been mentioned on all big news media.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Media will carry news on people who have died if they have appeared on some know tv show, How many of these "media" carried news on her BEFORE her interview on Ellen? No media wants to be the LAST one to report on a news, no matter how small the news is...--Stemoc (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Several of these "media" carried news on her BEFORE her interview on Ellen.. Even if the coverage was after, she still passes WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, maybe thats how Ellen knew of her and brought her to her show...and since CoverGirl isn't an actual magazine (i always thought it was) which means that her only form of notability is her youtube vids which led to the media tagging her as "notable" enough for making the news, but then not everything that makes news is deemed notable for inclusion here..again as i said originally, we don not want to set a precedence...lets just stick to the notability criteria cause every moment this seem to be heading towards the WP:NOTMEMORIAL than WP:NOTABILITY policy..--Stemoc (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Stemoc, you're now shifting on what kind of coverage you deem as suitable for inclusion after being shown the coverage you were asking for, so it's getting kind of hard to respond to you. If by "precedence" you mean articles about people who have received significant in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources, whether it be from youtube videos or anything else, as this person has, then "precedence" has already been set long ago.  If you'd like to change WP:GNG, you need to make your case on its talk page, not try to change "precedence" set many years ago in a single AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No one had considered Talia encyclopedic enough to create an article about her until she died.  Therefore, the article about Talia was clearly created as a response to her death.  While her death is undeniably sad, there is nothing particularly newsworthy about the way that she died.  So, if she wasn't noteworthy enough to have an article in life, and there was nothing uniquely noteworthy about the fashion in which she died, she doesn't warrant an article because she passed away.  As stated previously, this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a very silly argument. At minimum 10% of biographies, I bet, are created shorty later a person is dead, and I myself have created dozens of articles about people a few hours after they died (eg. Pierre Sadek, Luciano Lutring, Teresa Mattei, Regina Bianchi...). The timing of creation of this article is very common and obviously unrelated with the notability of a subject. Cavarrone 21:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the article was created before her death and speedy deleted because a single user felt it didn't indicate importance.  But everything Carvarrone stated is correct.  The previous lack of article creation has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the person.  There's a great amount of significant coverage on this person that can be the source of content way beyond a stub. --Oakshade (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

— 68.46.89.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Talia inspired thousands, and was famous before her death. What's the problem with having a page about her? It's not like her page takes up space on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.89.240 (talk • contribs)
 * In principle, I actually agree with you here. However, this rationale doesn't mesh with Wikipedia policy. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-talia-castellano-dead-dies-ellen-degeneres-20130716,0,6714954.story http://abcnews.go.com/US/talia-castellano-ellen-degeneres-cover-girl-dead-13/story?id=19685470#.Uedg3421Elg http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/ellen-degeneres-remembers-talia-castellano-shares-tribute-to-13-year-old-covergirl-2013177 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/talia-castellano http://www.curesearch.org/Talia-Castellano/ http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/youtube-star-talia-dies-cancer-article-1.1400328 http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20718161,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/07/17/talia-castellano-youtube-makeup-star-dies-at-13/ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/07/16/Cancer-stricken-teen-Talia-Castellano-dies-at-13/UPI-68861374008444/ http://www.parade.com/54655/hannah_dreyfus/covergirl-tali-castellano-claimed-by-cancer/ http://www.inquisitr.com/854009/talia-castellano-dies-at-13-social-web-and-celebs-pay-tribute/ Articles that were published before her death: http://www.today.com/id/49462293/ns/today-today_style/t/terminal-cancer-patient-becomes-honorary-covergirl/#.Uedheo21Elg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2314953/Teenage-girl-Talia-Joy-Castellano-terminal-cancer-fulfills-dream-launching-fashion-line.html http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-05-23/frisky-qa-teen-designer-talia-castellano-is-fighting-cancer-with-fashion/ http://www.refinery29.com/talia-castellano http://www.fashionmingle.net/taliacastellano/ http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/talia-castellano-in-new-zealand http://jezebel.com/5932699/12+year+old-cancer-patients-makeup-tutorials-are-the-best-thing-on-the-internet-right-now http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/meet-talia-castellano-worlds-most-inspiring-covergirl-144467 http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/are-you-braver-than-a-12-year-old-probably-not-this-one/ http://pinterest.com/taliajoy18/ http://thebeautyentrepreneur.com/talia-joy-castellano-the-inspiring-13year-old-mua-fashion-guru/ Some of the above pre-death articles may not be household names for websites, but they show the extent to which the Castellano inspired and motivated others. Also, note that she started her own fashion line, and was the guest at numerous venues because of this and her expertise at cosmetics. If you need more proof, I can find another hundred or two news stories and website articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Proof* Here's some proof of extensive coverage. Note the LA Times, ABC News, US Magazine, Huffington Post, NY Daily News, People Magazine, The Washington Post, United Press International (there were also AP articles), and Parade Magazine, among others.


 * Comment It would be nice if everyone voting 'keep' could actually do something to improve the actual article, which is still just a stub, even after all these references have been listed. Articles survive fundamentally because people make them worth keeping - notability is just a start. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is protected.Tom Barrister 06:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)
 * No, it is only semi-protected, although that does stop all the SPAs voting here from editing the article. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As it is the second time I read the same thing, it is worth remembering that "AFD is not cleanup", in AfDs we don't judge the length of articles, and everyone regardless of whether he/she voted keep, delete or abstained is welcome to improve the article. There is no rule against stubs: Wikipedia has no deadline, if there is notability, better a stub than nothing and at least 80% WP articles are stubs (and at least 80% of the other articles started as stubs). Stubs are perfectly acceptable except they are somehow harmful in their current state. Finally, however, it should be noted how the article was largely improved in just one day, expecting it will become a featured article in a few days is a bit too much. Cavarrone 07:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I'm not expecting it to get up to featured article status, as stated above I hope we can return to assess notability when the media spotlight has moved on. If at that point the article is well-written and properly referenced voters here will naturally be better-disposed towards it (especially as with this kind of fame the concept of notability is at its most subjective.) Yes, these are the rules, and yes, I'm aware that, as you say, "AFD is not cleanup" but in reality it often ends up working this way, and if we can get a good article out of the process it would be nice. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I second your feelings that "a good article out of the process it would be nice" but, really, this has nothing to do with the AfD process. As you can see in the template above, "AfD is not a vote" and the concept of notability is not subjective (even if many keep and delete votes above are absolutely subjective) but absolutely objective, it is based on a general notability guideline and on several additional guidelines. For the same reason I don't understand what it changes in assessing notability "when the media spotlight has moved on" as notability is not temporary, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Cavarrone 07:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course AfD isn't a vote, but as you can see there's not much chance of having a reasonable debate on this while it's receiving so much attention. Inevitably this will roll around as 'no consensus' next week - there's no way of disentagling what is/is not a reasonable argument from the above. Notability is not temporary, but that's beside the point, notability is simply not going to be determined here in this discussion. This has nothing to do with guidelines and everything to do with practicality. As for 'absolutely objective' - well, of course it should be, but once again, in reality some topics are easier to lay down rules for than others. This is one of the trickier ones. You tell me which sections of this apply here, and I'm sure we'll find other people with different views popping up straight away. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and I sympathize with the admin who will take the weight of reading all this extremely long and somewhere confused discussion, but I don't see the matter as very complex: once an extensive significant coverage in reliable sources in accordance with the general notability guideline was offered here and even included in the main article the concerns by the nominator about the notability of the subject (or about the limited duration of the coverage) were already addressed. Once WP:GNG is met and demonstrated, a subject does not require to meet any other SnG. If it was a vote it was maybe a no consensus, but weighting the arguments I don't see any valid deletion concern survived. Given that actually is clear that the subject received extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources during her life and after her death, right now on what basis is still asked the deletion of the article? Cavarrone 10:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Cavarrone, you are correct in your assessment. However, as most of the news reports are obituaries repeating the exact same information, it's neither significant nor extensive.  It's already been shown someone misinterpreted the nature of the CoverGirl source.  I'm pretty sure the media is over her now, and there likely won't be any coverage.  We seem to have an issue of sources existing as web addresses, but no one is actually reading the sources, meaning that the existence of sources rather than their quality is the benchmark for notability.  That is not what the policy says, however.  Also, "notability is not temporary" does say a lot about the length of time of coverage, and if it's all within the span of a week, that makes a huge difference. MSJapan (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * MSJapan, all within the span of a week?! Seriously, take a look at the sources currently included in the article, as well as at the many sources listed above, then if you are not yet satisfied make a little search on Google... we have literally hundreds of news articles about her long before the last week... and I prey you to read what means ""Significant coverage", it means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Obviously obituaries are significant coverage. About " the quality" of the sources, I see among the sources currently used in the article Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, The Miami Herald, ABC News, The Huffington Post, People, International Business Times so I'd say the quality is excellent. Cavarrone 17:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE - While it's not nice to speak ill of the dead, this person is not relevant or encyclopaedic. Just because someone dies and has a sad story that media types (i.e. Ellen) exploit for ratings, is not someone "worthy of notice." Getting on TV and dying of cancer is not an accomplishment, and it is likely that 10 years from now no one but her parents will remember her. We all pass and are forgotten, it doesn't make us unique. WP:PEOPLE requires that the topic of a bio article be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Sadly, I do not believe this "flash in the pan" sob story meets the bare minimum. Notability not sufficiently established, delete per WP:PEOPLE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ANYBIO. Great candidate for a speedy deletion under WP:CSD.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How is is this person easily passing WP:PEOPLE and its WP:GNG by receiving received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (well before her death) not passing WP:PEOPLE? Your personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion that she is not "significant, interesting, or unusual" to you is noted, but that has nothing do do with the significant coverage this person has received.  Throwing up WP:NOTMEMORIAL is nonsensical as this person received an incredible amount of significant coverage around the world before her death, not to mention WP:NOTMEMORIAL is meant for those who have not received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as this person has. If you're going to be convincing, you need to provide evidence as to why this person doesn't pass our guidelines instead of simply naming those guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably ColonelHenry missed that the basic criterium of WP:PEOPLE that says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"...  About CSD, I invite him to be bold and put the CSD#A7 tag in the article, when the tag will be removed in minutes by an admin he will maybe realize how absurd was his argument and how poor is his understanding of our policies... Cavarrone  21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Cavarrone, I voted based on how I interpret the clear policies...that's not an invitation for your cathartic need to browbeat me to change my mind or try to canvas me just because I happen to disagree (along with others who support deleting this useless, non-notable article). 10 years from now her parents are the only people who will remember her name. Too bad. She should have done something like cure cancer instead of being a sideshow on Ellen and YouTube. Doh! This article inspires a collective "so what?" and is about as notable as some paedophile cornered on DatelineNBC. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry colonel, both me and Oakshade only tried to explain you why your arguments are technically inaccurate and fallacious, but you keep on repeating more and more that in ten years noone will remember the subject of the article, ok, this is just your questionable personal opinion but has nothing to do with our remarks nor it is a decent argument for keeping/deleting an article. We have articles for people who are notable for having played a half dozen of matches in a professional soccer league, notable for appearing in some pornographic movies, notable for being the member of a royal family or notable for appearing in silly MTV reality shows, so yes, we can also have articles about an internet celebrity who died of cancer at young age. Cavarrone 23:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ColonelHenry, if by "interpret" you mean completely ignoring our clear policies, then yes, that's what you're doing. You're failing to explain how this person has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. All you're doing is throwing out pure personal WP:CRYSTAL speculation that has zero to do with our WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG guidelines and adding strange WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("She should have done something like cure cancer") conjecture, which thankfully our notability guidelines have never valued.--Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

— 69.181.231.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Close call but support Cavarrone's rationale. Quis separabit?  22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: per User:Cavarrone and others, but even without their arguments, evident plentiful coverage around Europe (Daily Mail UK article etc) for CoverGirl model ads says passes WP:GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: In the movie "Thank You for Smoking" we meet Cancer Boy, who is a parody of a young victim of cancer.  Funny, isn't it?  Not anymore.  Talia Castellano is a real Cancer Girl who touched millions of people, and made childhood cancer less of a joke.  Her influence on the societal perception of of cancer in general is truly notable.  She stands out among the many tragic (and familiar) stories, demonstrating something that reaches far beyond the sadness.  I can't describe it adequately, but I hope someone else can.  This little girl is more than a cancer victim; she was a philosopher and a teacher.  She will be remembered by hundreds of thousands.  Her story is unique. 69.181.231.62 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Total nonsense. She was neither a teacher nor a philosopher; she was a schoolgirl. Is her story unique? No! She is one of many millions of children who have died. She is not the first child with an incurable disease to have appeared on TV or the Internet. As for the rest of what you write, it is pure sentimentality and speculation and has no place on a serious encyclopedia. Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Both your arguments read like WP:ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Notability depends from reliable secondary sources, a rule that both of you are plain and simple ignoring. The IP is at least justified of not being an active user of the website. Cavarrone 15:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The implication that a 13 year old can neither teach nor philosophize is absurd. Nor is her death from cancer the sole reason that the article is justified.Tom Barrister 19:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding to the article. I am sure that all of those who, like myself, want the article deleted would be delighted if all of the "keep" brigade spent more time adding information to the article instead of trying to bring tears to our eyes. If she was such a unique and wonderful figure with so many magazine articles and TV appearances to her name, who was a philosopher and a teacher and had a YouTube channel, then it is to your eternal shame that the article remains a stub. Do something about the poverty of the page and you might get a bit more support from the rest of us. If you had written half as much fact about her as the speculative nonsense you have collectively written, there would be a full article and we would not be having this discussion. Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, how many times do you want to say that the article is a stub? Sure it is still a stub, but surely it was largerly improved by the time of the nomination, as now include sources like Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, The Miami Herald, ABC News, The Huffington Post, People, International Business Times, enough to demonstrate that the subject passes the notability bar. It respect the two rules that really make any sense when building an encyclopedia: it summarizes the key points of the subject's biography and contains a good number of reliable sources to verify them. Is it not enough for you? Instead of complaining day by day, take a a handful of the sources listed above by User:Tombarrister, User:Oakshade and others, read them and expand the article by yourself. Cavarrone  15:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I only said once that it is a stub. You are the one trying to turn her into a heroic figure, not me, so you supply the facts. You, also, already know that newspaper and magazine articles do not always relate facts, merely the points a journalist wants to put across to get a good pay cheque. Which begs the question why you have so much interest in pushing articles with Italian names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Once? Fortunately words remain and people could still read your previous complaint about "a stub that will forever more remain one" and about keep voters that should improve it instead of discussing here. Am I trying to turn her into a heroic figure? Hilarious accusations... I merely said that she patiently passes the requirements of WP:GNG. I am just trying to apply and live with our guidelines, nothing more, nothing less. On the contrary in your arguments you are simply ignoring any guideline and also pushing your negative bias against journalism. Frankly, if you don't accept magazine and newspaper articles as reliable sources you are in the wrong site. Am I "pushing" articles with "Italian names"? Laughable... now provide evidences of my bad faith. I have no bias. I'm Italian so I have some interest and even some competence on several Italian topics, but you can easily check that I voted for deletion or even nominated for deletion several articles about Italian subjects, not less or not more than in the other AfD discussions I participate. Cavarrone  18:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * COMMENT: This has gone beyond a discussion about an article for deletion and turned into a Guild Wars match. Apparently, somebody has a wild hair about getting this deleted. As for me, I'm not spending a few hours of my time to improve this article, only to find out that it's been yanked, because the obsessed person managed to fool/convince an editor/admin to removing it. If it stays, I'll do what I can to improve it.Tom Barrister 19:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

— 69.181.231.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * COMMENT SECONDED: This really has become a flame war. Williamgeorgefraser seems to think that Talia Castellano isn't dead enough, whilst he accuses Cavarrone of "pushing articles with Italian names" -- Whoa. Ok, stop throwing sand boys. Tom Barrister makes an excellent point about just letting the article be a stub for now; it's a pretty good stub.  When the smoke clears and the dust settles, many of us will come forward and expand the article.  Please keep in mind that only a few of us (probably not me) are qualified to do this kind of work, and if done well can be rather time consuming.  In the absence of a qualified author, a less qualified author (probably me) will certainly step up. 69.181.231.62 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 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.