Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCLA 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 DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA Girl

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

Fails WP:BLP1E; no other indication of notability. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It even has New York Times coverage rtner=rss&emc=rss please give a bit of time to finish the article. Tüzes fal (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it fails WP:1E. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. This is not significant, and might have a better chance of being included as part of another article, but has no notability on its own. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What if we rename it UCLA Girl Video and write about the significance of the video only? Tüzes fal (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I cannot and will not speak for everyone, in my opinion this article has no weight, and should be deleted, as the video, person, and event are not notable enough to warrant a separate article. While there are sources detailing the video, and they may be enough to provide inclusion in another article, a separate article is not appropriate. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"they may be enough to provide inclusion in another article" Which one is the other article, where it would be OK? Tüzes fal (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete Obviously as creator I ask please do not delete. I think there are enough sources now and many many more can be found if you look for them. Tüzes fal (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is right within the wheelhouse of WP:BLP1E. A different article on the same topic was deleted last Friday, speedily, and I see no reason why this one shouldn't be as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The bio of this no-hit wonder under her real name was recently deleted on One Event grounds. This far inferior new incarnation should receive the same fate. And salt. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remade the article so it is no longer a biography. Arguments dealing with the article being an inappropriate biography no longer apply, I even removed any hint of the identity of the Video's creator from the article. The article now only intends to deal with the video. Please reconsider in light of the above. Tüzes fal (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, this still fails WP:1E. The subject of this article does not have lasting notability. - SudoGhost (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was renamed, the new name is UCLA Girl Video. I went to the link you give and it said "People notable for only one event", however the article is no longer about "people". It is about a video now. Anyone is welcome to edit the article more so it would comply with the policies. Please. Tüzes fal (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the person is not notable as per WP:1E, the event is not notable as per WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. It is my opinion that if the information in this article is in any way preserved, it should be merged into a relevant article, not as its own article. The event received media coverage, but it was short lasting and very likely will never be heard from again. According to WP:PERSISTENCE, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." - SudoGhost (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BLP1E does not warrant a standalone article for a single event that will die quickly and an example of Wikipedia:Recentism. Merging into ching chong is a possibility, though non-relevant details will need to be removed to include there, as evidenced by a previous reversion —Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:BLP1E—Chris!_c/t 01:24, 27 March 2011 (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.