Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Greenlee

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Greenlee

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

Fails WP:PERPETRATOR and WP:BLP1E. Sourcing is sparse and does not demonstrate "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage". Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Yoninah (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclosure, I'm the article author) - I've just added more references that help demonstrate "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage". 2005 in The Corpse: A History published by McFarland & Company; 2012 in Psychology Today; 2013 by Lena Wånggren (high-level academic) as part of a research group at University of Stirling. All of these discuss the exceptional nature of the subject of this article, her actions and motivations; all of these are independent-secondary-reliable, not "news coverage", and show continued dicussion through recent years. Sure, the article could use a lot of expansion and there are probably more sources out there, but I do believe it meets WP:PERPETRATOR. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few more book sources on the article's talk page, I'll format them and add them to the article probably over the weekend. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems ok with the new refs. WP:BLP1E seems ok as under condition 3 the event seems significant due to the interest (due to her gender). Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Disgusted Keep. What I am truly inclined to do is vote this ghoul off the planet. Unfortunately, sourcing for notability is undeniably there. And it's hard to argue that this violates BLP when the person involved is not merely notable for having sex with dead bodies, she brags about doing to in books, interviews...words fail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about the undeniably morbid subject matter. I assure you I don't make a habit out of writing about such darkness usually. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These comments gave me a good laugh. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I already noted before, subject passes WP:CRIMINAL as the given sources are enough to establish notability. Jim Carter 16:21, 11 March 2016 (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.