Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katrina Darrell (2nd nomination)

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.

Katrina Darrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats

)

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

Fails

• Delete as a BLP1E. There is no significant ongoing coverage of her as a personal, but just lots of passing mentions that she sang on TV in a bikini. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an easy vote for me at this stage. Yes she has gotten attention obviously for being outrageous. There is on-going coverage of her which I don't find surprising. Other incidents that I hope don't make her seem like bimbos that always make the news when they make mischief just because they're members of wealthy or famous families. I've found other info about this Cali Gal that relate to other things. I vote to keep the article and then in maybe 6 months or better still a year later, if need be possibly revisit this. Karl Twist (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This incident happened in 2009. Could you provide evidence of "on-going coverage"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I meant coverage of other things. Incident was another. She's also just done a horror film released this year and I believe another on the way. Karl Twist (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The ongoing coverage that is claimed is not in the article, nor did I find it in my own searches. I'm prepared to change my !vote if appropriate ongoing coverage is demonstrated. -- Whpq (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I still maintain that there is other coverage of her. She did make the news in 2012 in papers around the world as a result of her accident. Also: As the film that she film that she has appeared in this year has only been released this year and the other project hasn't been released yet, I still maintain that the best thing to do is wait and see what happens over a course of 6 months or a year. No doubt she will get mentions and more as a result of her acting. Karl Twist (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:REFUND and add the relevant material. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I hear what you're saying Tavix. I believe that she is notable enough now as she is. I just suggested waiting for 6 or 12 months for those who are skeptical. Because nobody is taking much notice of her article to improve it and add good info, this is part of the issue. Karl Twist (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason nobody is adding anything is because there is nothing to add. -- Whpq (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Whpq, I've been able to create a section Film and television. I've added a bit and there are 2 more films to go in there. I might do a bit more but I'd rather be doing something else. Karl Twist (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my last post here, as I mentioned, I added a bit as there is more to add as I have done, but you have to look for it. Looking at Highbeam, having 14 hits can be an indicator. Karl Twist (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for your efforts to improve the article. However, none of that work establishes that there is ongoing coverage about her. The entirety of the sourcing for that section is either sources that simply list her name as part of a list of credits for a movie or TV, or does not mention her at all (so I am unsure why these references are even there). In a couple of instances, the sources have actually scraped information from Wikipedia. As for Highbeam, the fact that you get search results proves nothing without actually looking at what is being written about her. We can skip the 2003 obituary as that isn't about Darrell at all. We can also skip all the 2009 stories as we know she got a blip of coverage in 2009 and that does not constitute the continuing coverage that needs to be established. That leaves two articles from 2011. There are non-paywalled versions available for each: [1], and [2]. As you can see from these articles, both simply are a passing mention and are not significant coverage about Darrell. -- Whpq (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even with the modifications (credit to the amender of the article for their efforts in dragging this up to the N/BLP1E threshold). In my opinion, however, the subject of this article still does not meet the level of notability we require to pass BLP1E. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:BLP1E.

  I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that the redirect can be undone if the subject becomes notable in the future. And preserving the history will allow the content in the article to be merged to the target article.

  Cunard (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect as per Cunard. Clearly n/blp1e, but think the history is worth preserving. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]