Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Corban

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. Seems to be fairly even disagreement whether WP:BLP1E (and other issues) apply or not. ansh 666 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Corban

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (after it expired, but before it was deleted with no rationale). The concern for PRODing this is that it meets WP:BLP1E conditions 1) Reliable sources only cover her in the context of challenging Obama on Gun control 2) She has remained, and is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and 3) the event was not significant. menaechmi (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a BEFORE performed prior to nom? I see a number of book references - [1] [2] [3]. Beyond the copious initial 2016 references, this continues through 2016-2017 - [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Yes - lots of right-wing less-reliable outlets (but they still demonstrate ~~reliablity~~notability. Seems she's become a rape-surviving pro-gun poster-girl for the NRA - and it doesn't look like that's going away.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Modified significant typo (with strikethrough).Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was, thank you. Of those book mentions, one is part of a link (included in a book, why would you do that?) to the Washington Post article on her, and both the second and third are again about her interaction with Obama. Passing mentions in articles that say "She'll be joining us later on the show"[11], a name-check in an article about the women's march [12], "8 NRA Twitter accounts to follow in 2017" [13], and an article to tell people to watch the video [14] aren't claims of notability. The three interview with her about her sexual assault are primary and don't count towards notability, and would be an awful article to have to write. menaechmi (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-event notice, not sustained notability. If for some reason the article is kept it needs to be serverly revisied to remove the POV-pushing "brave decision" and other unecyclopedic language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prominent public figure. Covered in many RS. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire article was a COPYVIO of the subject's website. I cleaned up the unencyclopedic breathless style and added references. No opinion on whether the topic is notable. BTW, it's quicker to edit the article than to discuss it. Rhadow (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a subject of extensive third-party sources, the subject is far more than a mere BIO1E, having created a larger role in public discourse. More refs and work still needed, but article quality is not the same as notability. Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Third party sources exists. She is a prominent public figure.BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:BIO1E and WP:ADVOCACY for the subject's position. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.