Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Wasser

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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Wasser

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

Classic WP:BLP1E. Model who had toxic shock syndrome from a tampon, debuted at Fashion Week with a prosthetic leg, and promptly dropped off the face of the earth coverage-wise. Every single hit on her name is the same story. MSJapan (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a lawsuit against Kotex - the company that made the tampon - which I am planning to develop into the article. I am not sure if the inclusion of the lawsuit event is better placed within the Kotex article or within this article. I feel...mention of the lawsuit along with TSS makes this article worthy of being put up on Wikipedia. Thus, not every hit is same story. Kapil.xerox (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Fails BLP1E as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does not satisfy all three conditions of WP:BLP1E as required as coverage is continuing, the event was significant and the subject's role was substantial and well documented. ~Kvng (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is as there's still nothing else from the events and thus there's no inherited article simply because of those events, there's also imaginably simply nothing else for any future improvements thus delete overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly one of those WP:BLP1E situations. I would disagree that this is a major event, four news sources doesn't mean that the event was necessarily very notable, and the subject definitely fails the other two points of BLP1E. She also hasn't received nearly enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, there is really not that many reliable sources out there at all in relation to this event. Omni Flames (talk) 10:40, 29 June 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.