Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Raphael Bender

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Raphael Bender

Doesn't meet notability criteria. Appears to be WP:BLP1E. Disembrangler (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Tom (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even 1e - BLP0E. Not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something but definitely not delete. I would only support a keep if more independent sources were found. This seems like a bit of an example of WP:ONEEVENT. This source: [1], which is already on the article, has detailed coverage. There are other sources that cover her in detail too. However, they seem to be recycled press-releases from the International Solidarity Movement so I think there is some question of whether such sources are independent or not. I'm not sure whether these sources should be counted in establishing notability--if they are counted I would say she is solidly notable. Otherwise (and I am leaning this way) I would say she probably isn't, and the content should be merged somewhere...merged, not deleted, because that sfgate article makes the core event--her getting deported for her protests--verifiable. I think the event belongs somewhere on wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person. However, if the article does stay, I will insist that WP:CENSOR rules be strictly enforced. --GHcool (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been covered by the news media for two, not just one, incidents related to her claimed notability as an activist. Not the greatest article or the most important person but notable enough to keep. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered by reliable sources for events spanning more than several years apart so ONEEVENT doesn't apply. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficiently important for either event, and the two together do not make her any the more notable. DGG (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is still essentially WP:BLP1E. The second "notable" act isn't all that notable. It was a boycott (big deal) carried in a small paper. But that article was more about the org than her. Being the spokesperson/organizer for the org gets your name mentioned, but the boycott isn't yours, it's the orgs boycott. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any notability here. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor spokesperson for a tiny organisation. No independent notability here. Nick mallory (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:BIO or WP:N--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are any of the people arguing to delete opposed to the idea of a merge? The event itself seems something that ought to be included somewhere on wikipedia...it's verifiable in multiple reliable sources. I think it is an interesting and notable as an example of Israel deporting a Jew who was protesting its security barrier. Cazort (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added a book reference from International Press Institute to the article Power.corrupts (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good source, and I think solidly establishes that the material should not be deleted. But does it contain any biographical info? I still am leaning towards merging. (into what, I don't know) But I would prefer a keep to a delete. Cazort (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does the reference actually say about the subject? It doesn't appear to be online. Disembrangler (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange you cant see it. Snippet view here [2] - The mention seems more to be of her deportion case, than of her person. This is why I believe BLP1E is irrelevant, all events are per def isolated, but this event has broader interest and concerns democratic principles etc. Strictly, I would say the case is more important than the person, but in practice the two become intertwined, the person synonymous with the case. A pragmatic solution is a keep as a bio. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I see two mentions in one paragraph. It's possible that the incident merits a brief mention somewhere else on Wikipedia, but I'm not persuaded of that either. (Wikinews, sure.) In any case, for me, it is absolutely insufficient for a bio on the person. WP:BLP1E is very relevant here (I discount the Trader Joes thing - it's so non-notable). Disembrangler (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (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.