Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Shelton

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 as a week has suggested there is in fact enough for a separate article considering the circumstances and events about this, therefore there's enough to suggest this can be kept (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Shelton

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

This is a clear violation of WP:BIO1E Kbabej (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One event? What about Trayvon Martin? His death was the one event that justifies the article. 93.224.110.17 (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep She's notable for the 1975 event, for the 2014 CNN special, and for the 2016 appearance at the debate. Rjensen (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well right, one can put it like this. But these events are directly connected. The media decide how an event is narrated (cf. Trayvon Martin's case and the outcome: marches etc.). 93.224.110.17 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of media have a hand in this--newspapers, networks, commentators have talked about her for years--about her trial, and about her activity opposing Clinton for 41 years, as of course have enemies of Clinton. That is notability and she is someone Wiki users want to learn about in a nonpartisan source. Rjensen (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~. I agree, but the article's quality surely has to be improved. 93.224.110.17 (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the proposer - she's not notable according to WP:BIO1E. Also, most of the article is about Clinton and her approach to the defence of the accused rapist, not specifically about the subject. It's also something of a WP:COATRACK for an accusation concerning the Trump presidential campaign. Neiltonks (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - especially now that she showed up in the Trump debate production. But article needs improvement - there are more fact checks out there to make use of. 2600:1002:B118:2F37:99C:5C75:2BF3:238C (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. per sources, article quality and notability is two different things. Notability is not measured after article standard but by notability guidelines. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets notability guidelines. A subject being difficult to keep neutral, due to being a hot-button political topic is not a valid reason to delete when the subject clearly meets notability guidelines. Editors and mods simply need to be vigilant in keeping the article encyclopedic and neutral. Fish Man (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her name keeps getting mentioned in the campaign and people are curious about her. The article should be watched closely to ensure NPOV. 161.185.151.51 (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article need improvement but should not be deleted. Now she is a notable person as we can see her in various interview and Trump's campain. (Ominictionary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ominictionary (talk • contribs) 10:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this may be of interest but is written with extreme bias. HRC personal attitudes are intuited with no reference, More facts on Kathy shelton, should also be included. married, childern education.. if not then this is a rape article and should be reclassified. just to be plain this is largely politically motivated page and should be removed or dramatically altered" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.161.232 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, especially because the 1E in question is really that HRC was the appointed public defender in the case; the 1E isn't even about the subject of this article. That she has gained another few minutes of fame because she was contacted by HRC's election opponent does not change this; the reason for that goes back to the same thing: being the public defender in a case decades ago and now being a presidential candidate. Frank | talk 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bulk of the article is about the trial. Wouldn't it be better to move to a page about the trial? There is very little biographical information about her, but quite a bit about the trial itself. I agree that this is a tough one: on one hand, she is notable for 1 event, but that event keeps getting brought up over time. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a move to a page about the trial with a redirect for Kathy Shelton to land there. Like you said, there's almost nothing biographical in this article. Kbabej (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is extremely notable at present, no doubt will be the subject of extensive searches after her appearance at the debate between Hillary and Trump. I could certainly be improved by more background on the trial, prosecution misgivings, and bio material on the subject. Activist (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Kathy Shelton rape trial or something similar. The event is notable, but the individual is not. Kathy Shelton is not notable for any other events in her life and we simply can't create a full and balanced article for her because everything written about her is in connection to the trial. Per WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO, Shelton doesn't seem to merit an article, but the trial certainly could. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 01:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual is in the public spotlight so I think the current title is fine. I know Wikipedia doesn't like Fox News but she was on Hannity.[1] She is active on Twitter, with over 21,000 followers.[2] Some of her tweets were shown on Twitchy.[3] Emily Goldstein (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not think we can rename . The presumption on privacy is lost when it become part of a major political campaign, and very widely reported. even if it's no fault of the individual that it became involved. It's not the Kathy Shelton rape trial but the TAT rape trial, which is really undue emphasis on someone who was not convicted of rape. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 19 October 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.