Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: This article was deleted in a second 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.

The result was no consensus, does need cleanup though. Jaranda wat's sup 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Kayla Nebeker Karhohs

Kayla_Nebeker_Karhohs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ( View log)

Delete: non-notable. Sad story, but non-notable. Arbiteroftruth 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Do Not Delete: this page is notable. The type of cancer she had does not recieve enough attention publicly and adding faces to a disease helps others understand it more and realize its effect on the world community. Kayla is notable for more than just being a victim of a tragic disease, because there are several developing projects that she serves as an inspiration for. Similar to the Komen foundation for breast cancer there is a foundation named after Kayla that is being formed currently for glioblastoma multiforme. This information will of course be added to the Wikipedia article as it develops. Also, there is an annual concert called the Gala for Kayla that is going to be held this. Its first year was in 2006. Furthermore, notable is a very relative term. Granted she isn't in any movies and she isn't famous like Abe Lincoln, but what hasn't been reflected on the Kayla Nebeker Karhohs page is how she did have a great effect on those who were lucky enough to know her and those who have simply found out about her story. If you lived in Reno you would have heard about her. Google her name and look at all she has accomplished. The local news has done a story on her and several publications have done stories on her. I have read the guidelines expressing "What Wikipedia is Not" and I did not find her page in accordance with anything on that list that would deem her page inappropriate for wikipedia. I acknowledge more needs to be done to her page and encourage anyone who joins this discussion to add their input to it. Finally, I don't know how "notable" is defined, but I think that after anyone looks at the changes made to her page, they will see that for a 23 year old woman she accomplished a great deal on her own merits and that while it is sad she died an untimely death that is not the only thing that she is known for. karhohs 7:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Mr. Karhohs, I understand that the brain tumor that Ms. Karhohs had is a serious illness, but she is just not notable enough for Wikipedia, compared to this person, who was a BBC journalist with the same disease, and gained widespread notability for a BBC News blog that documented his battle on BBC's website. His death was reported by BBC as well, to a global audience. THAT is notability, Ms. Karhohs' article is, unfortunately, not. Arbiteroftruth 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete (duplicate nomination -- Bi 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)) I have a large collection of thrid-party sources. I have TV broadcasts and lots of newspaper articles. I noticed the articles about her that were online have been removed from their websites. Would it do anything if I put them back up on the web? I would appreciate it if the people voting to delete this article would go further than a sentence and explain their argument more, so that I can work to remedy what the article is lacking. I read the notability article and do understand there is a certain threshold that must be met and I do understand it is an encyclopedia. However, if the threshold is made too high, then information will be lost. This article should not be deleted, because it is still growing. Soon the foundation and the concert will recieve a lot of third party attention and when it does I know someone will want to learn more about Kayla and why there is a foundation and a concert named after her. It would be awesome if this hypothetical person only had to go as far as wikipedia to find out all they want to know. Does someone need to write a biography about her in order to support the information that is currently in the article? Is there a certain amount of grace period that the article can exist while changes are still being made? If this article is going to be deleted, because there is a lack of evidence supporting its contents and thus it is deemed non-notable, then please give me some feedback of more than a sentence. Isn't the idea to collect more knowledge? If that is the case please help me get this article done the right way, instead of just trying to delete it. karhohs 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source. This means that we cannot have articles about persons/places/things that may become notable, important or otherwise encyclopedic. You say that the foundation and gala will recieve a lot of third party coverage. If and when that happens and these things become established as notable, then an article on the subject backed up by these sources will be more than welcome. We have to wait for that, however, otherwise we become a speculative rather than informative work. Arkyan 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • karhohs, the addition of such sources should (by Wikipedia standards) be sufficient. The sources actually don't have to be online; if the print articles are sourced (title, date, publication, and date), that itself should be enough. -- Black Falcon 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the purpose of Wikipedia is not to collect more knowledge. The purpose is to write a free encyclopedia. If and when Kayle Karhohs recieve non-trivial coverage from mutliple, reliable, third party sources, then an article will be written. In the mean time, I suggest that you review WP:Notablity and WP:COI. Her story is unfortunate, but that doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- RaiderAspect 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete as things stand. This article is terribly sad but not notable. If karhohs can provide thrid party links to provide N, then it becomes a Keep. If not, the article can be reinstated at a later date if notablity can be establishedi nt he future. StuartDouglas 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While the author's intention to try and promote awareness about what may be a poorly understood, serious medical issue is noble, Wikipedia is still not a vehicle for advocacy, regardless of the nobility of one's cause. Furthermore the author seems to be related to the subject, and while I can sympathize with the desire to eulogize a loved one, this isn't the place for memorials either. Arkyan 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:N which says ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This article includes four newspaper article about the subject which meet these criteria. None of them are an obituary, but they are continuing coverage of her efforts to raise funds for the treatment of the cancer. There is then no basis for deleting the other article other than some subjective feeling that the subject is not notable enough despite multiple independent news coverage. (See WP:NOTNEWS, a disputed guideline proposal for subjects of news stories). Edison 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - please note that 3 of these 4 sources are from a local student newspaper. Whether or not this has any effect on whether it meets WP:N or not is subject to interpretation (and it is my interpretation that multiple articles in a small student newspaper do not satisfy N) and I will leave it to the individual to decide that - but I did think it warranted mention. Arkyan 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - notable only for her medical condition (if that), which is directly against WP:BIO. Definite COI ("Up-and-coming star in nutritional science"? and the main contributor seems to be her widower). Also WP:NOT advertising space for galas and the foundation. WP:NOT a memorial. Simply put, this is not an appropriate use of the Wiki. MSJapan 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment 1 The article has been revised again in an effort to remove all forms of opinion and bias. Evidence for COI ("Up-and-coming star in nutritional science") has been removed. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment 2 The only thing reported about the gala and foundation is fact supported by references. The gala and foundation are two things that make Kayla notable and assert her significance. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment 3 This is not a memorial. Yes she is fondly remembered, but Yes there are notable elements of Kayla beyond being fondly remembered. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per MSJapan / Blaxthos 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Commensuration Argues for Inclusion - From an objective viewpoint, this article is facing deletion for one reason only, namely, this article is meaningless for those not involved in that particular region. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that there is limitless space as well as a simple and fair threshold that must be met for an article to be included. This article meets those (at least when I viewed it just now)requirements. I think several of the arguments for deletion are now obsolete or hold no water (MSJapan and Arbiteroftruth). "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source." "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view." This article meets these two criteria (admittedly this article has some flavor of opinion). The information in this article may not all be attributable, but I see several sources listed. These sources are easily not "questionable or self-published sources". (A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.) I also see that this article may have been very heavily slanted at one time, but it is now apparently no more slanted than several articles that are widley accepted. Therefore, it meets the two major hurdles (a somewhat neutral viewpoint and reliable secondary sources) You can not judge inclusion of this article based on regiospecific interest. Remember that something can be important regionally, and yet mean nothing to 80% or 90% of others (the election of a mayor, or her resignation relative to poor conduct). That is one of the wonderful facets of all of this. By the rules alone, it can stay. Blackfrancis 03:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— Blackfrancis ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Strong keep per excellent argument above by Blackfrancis. The sources provided are sufficient to establish notability as per WP:N. Sources are required to be reliable, not notable. As long as a source is reliable, it goes a way toward satisfying the notability criterion. My condolences to Mr. Karhohs. -- Black Falcon 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Blackfrancis and Black Falcon. — Carolfrog 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While many of the cited articles are from the UNR newspaper, two are from the local CBS affiliate. This shows that the topic meets the "multiple, non-trivial" requirement of WP:N. I will admit, it isn't the most notable thing ever, but it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Y| yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment- Yukichigai, this article is, by no stretch, notable. I, myself, made local news a couple of times for positive reasons and I made school newspapers as well in the past. I am also a news reporter for a university student TV, but so what? Does that give me a ticket to Wikipedia? This story is very tragic, I know, but that should not cloud our judgement. Wikipedia is not a memorial for the departed. We MUST not let emotions cloud our decision. This article will survive well in blogosphere, but not on Wikipedia. She only made news for her illness, and she is hardly the first person to have that kind of brain tumor. There are more famous people with the same diseases who still lives or have departed. This page is not notable. Arbiteroftruth 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, but only if rewritten I must admit I'm a bit of an inclusionist, or else I would probably vote delete. Just on the hairy edge of notability. However, as written, the article reads more like a memorial page. In particular, the "Resources Kayla found helpful" section is about as unencyclopedic as you can get. Like Arbiter says, don't let emotion cloud it. Tragic story, but Wikipedia is not the place for memorial pages. -- Jaysweet 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the author has made a valiant effort to cleanup the article to meet Wikipedia standards and I have to commend the effort. Based on a narrow interpretation of WP:N it can be argued that the notability criteria has now been met, however I have to admit that I am unconvinced. The articles all read like local human interest stories rather than having much substance. At the risk of sounding insensitive, when you filter out all the fluff about where she grew up and who she married, the only thing she did to establish any real notability was to die of an unfortunate illness. As far as the foundation in her name or related events establishing some notoriety, that may be a different story, but the story of a nice, well liked girl who died in sad circumstances is still not encyclopedic material. Arkyan 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - Here's a passage from WP:N on notability --- Notability is generally permanent

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.

---

With that said, do we expect this person who has since departed to retain the "notability" (if we can even call it that) 6 months from now? True, her families will remember her, but people as an ordinary citizen, people like me, would most likely (pretty much certain to) move on. I don't think any Average Joe would continue to mourn this person's passing after a few weeks.

Like I said earlier, what I am doing here is unclouded by conflicts of interests, as we cannot let our emotions get in the way of editing Wikipedia. My sympathies are with the Karhohs family for their loss, but this is not, was not, and will never be, a ticket to an article on Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Notability has nothing to do with whether people will "remember" something. Very few people "remember" James Polk, but that has no bearing on his notability. The passage you cite actually weakens your point. According to it, if a subject passes WP:N once (which it has done), it is taken to have passed it over time, even if coverage of the subject decreases. Once satisfied, always satisfied. Whether that's a good thing or not can be debated, but as it stands, this article has passed WP:N. -- Black Falcon 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Black Falcon, if we take emotions out of it, this article has not passed the threshold by any length. Hence, the rule that it will never pass the threshold. It never reached the standards for inclusion! Arbiteroftruth 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Arbiteroftruth, the threshold is: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works that are independent of the subject of the article. -- Black Falcon 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • A sympathy package story from a TV station and some articles from a campus newspapers does not count, my friend. look at this, a man who suffered from the same illness whose battle was documented by BBC news as a blog on its website, with interviews conducted and shown to the British public. The news of his death was broadcast all over the world via BBC World. THIS is notability. Arbiteroftruth 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
        • This bias (even if perhaps a valid one) against a "sympathy package story from a TV station" or an article "from a campus newspaper" is not grounded in any policy or guideline. Per our rules, this article qualifies for inclusion. Pointing me to another person who's received more coverage doesn't prove much, as there are also millions of people that receive less coverage. Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument and the points you raise. But as I see it, this article meets WP's current policies and the fact that it is well-attributed leaves me without incentive to even try to justify its deletion. I hope this clarifies my position and arguments so far. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

How about we move the page to Karhoh's userpage, and delete the main entry on Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Given my opinion that this article meets WP policies and guidelines, I do not see such a move as warranted. However, I would likely support such a move if User:karhohs himself requests the removal of the page from the article mainspace (not resulting from undue pressure, of course). The article has already received non-minor edits from other editors, so {{ db-author}} is no longer applicable. But again, I might support removal of the article out of WP:BLP concerns relevant to Mrs. Nebeker Karhohs' family, but only if it is author-requested. I should note here that I only speak/write for myself, and other editors who have expressed "keep" opinions here may not agree with me on this point. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The two CBS affiliate pieces on her satisfy WP:BIO. We might not like the reason for her "notablity", ie "She's famous becuase of her illness," but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. -- Oakshade 02:13, 11 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kayla_Nebeker_Karhohs&oldid=1071555331"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOTE: This article was deleted in a second 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.

The result was no consensus, does need cleanup though. Jaranda wat's sup 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Kayla Nebeker Karhohs

Kayla_Nebeker_Karhohs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ( View log)

Delete: non-notable. Sad story, but non-notable. Arbiteroftruth 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Do Not Delete: this page is notable. The type of cancer she had does not recieve enough attention publicly and adding faces to a disease helps others understand it more and realize its effect on the world community. Kayla is notable for more than just being a victim of a tragic disease, because there are several developing projects that she serves as an inspiration for. Similar to the Komen foundation for breast cancer there is a foundation named after Kayla that is being formed currently for glioblastoma multiforme. This information will of course be added to the Wikipedia article as it develops. Also, there is an annual concert called the Gala for Kayla that is going to be held this. Its first year was in 2006. Furthermore, notable is a very relative term. Granted she isn't in any movies and she isn't famous like Abe Lincoln, but what hasn't been reflected on the Kayla Nebeker Karhohs page is how she did have a great effect on those who were lucky enough to know her and those who have simply found out about her story. If you lived in Reno you would have heard about her. Google her name and look at all she has accomplished. The local news has done a story on her and several publications have done stories on her. I have read the guidelines expressing "What Wikipedia is Not" and I did not find her page in accordance with anything on that list that would deem her page inappropriate for wikipedia. I acknowledge more needs to be done to her page and encourage anyone who joins this discussion to add their input to it. Finally, I don't know how "notable" is defined, but I think that after anyone looks at the changes made to her page, they will see that for a 23 year old woman she accomplished a great deal on her own merits and that while it is sad she died an untimely death that is not the only thing that she is known for. karhohs 7:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Mr. Karhohs, I understand that the brain tumor that Ms. Karhohs had is a serious illness, but she is just not notable enough for Wikipedia, compared to this person, who was a BBC journalist with the same disease, and gained widespread notability for a BBC News blog that documented his battle on BBC's website. His death was reported by BBC as well, to a global audience. THAT is notability, Ms. Karhohs' article is, unfortunately, not. Arbiteroftruth 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Do Not Delete (duplicate nomination -- Bi 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)) I have a large collection of thrid-party sources. I have TV broadcasts and lots of newspaper articles. I noticed the articles about her that were online have been removed from their websites. Would it do anything if I put them back up on the web? I would appreciate it if the people voting to delete this article would go further than a sentence and explain their argument more, so that I can work to remedy what the article is lacking. I read the notability article and do understand there is a certain threshold that must be met and I do understand it is an encyclopedia. However, if the threshold is made too high, then information will be lost. This article should not be deleted, because it is still growing. Soon the foundation and the concert will recieve a lot of third party attention and when it does I know someone will want to learn more about Kayla and why there is a foundation and a concert named after her. It would be awesome if this hypothetical person only had to go as far as wikipedia to find out all they want to know. Does someone need to write a biography about her in order to support the information that is currently in the article? Is there a certain amount of grace period that the article can exist while changes are still being made? If this article is going to be deleted, because there is a lack of evidence supporting its contents and thus it is deemed non-notable, then please give me some feedback of more than a sentence. Isn't the idea to collect more knowledge? If that is the case please help me get this article done the right way, instead of just trying to delete it. karhohs 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - Remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source. This means that we cannot have articles about persons/places/things that may become notable, important or otherwise encyclopedic. You say that the foundation and gala will recieve a lot of third party coverage. If and when that happens and these things become established as notable, then an article on the subject backed up by these sources will be more than welcome. We have to wait for that, however, otherwise we become a speculative rather than informative work. Arkyan 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • karhohs, the addition of such sources should (by Wikipedia standards) be sufficient. The sources actually don't have to be online; if the print articles are sourced (title, date, publication, and date), that itself should be enough. -- Black Falcon 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the purpose of Wikipedia is not to collect more knowledge. The purpose is to write a free encyclopedia. If and when Kayle Karhohs recieve non-trivial coverage from mutliple, reliable, third party sources, then an article will be written. In the mean time, I suggest that you review WP:Notablity and WP:COI. Her story is unfortunate, but that doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- RaiderAspect 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete as things stand. This article is terribly sad but not notable. If karhohs can provide thrid party links to provide N, then it becomes a Keep. If not, the article can be reinstated at a later date if notablity can be establishedi nt he future. StuartDouglas 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. While the author's intention to try and promote awareness about what may be a poorly understood, serious medical issue is noble, Wikipedia is still not a vehicle for advocacy, regardless of the nobility of one's cause. Furthermore the author seems to be related to the subject, and while I can sympathize with the desire to eulogize a loved one, this isn't the place for memorials either. Arkyan 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:N which says ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This article includes four newspaper article about the subject which meet these criteria. None of them are an obituary, but they are continuing coverage of her efforts to raise funds for the treatment of the cancer. There is then no basis for deleting the other article other than some subjective feeling that the subject is not notable enough despite multiple independent news coverage. (See WP:NOTNEWS, a disputed guideline proposal for subjects of news stories). Edison 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - please note that 3 of these 4 sources are from a local student newspaper. Whether or not this has any effect on whether it meets WP:N or not is subject to interpretation (and it is my interpretation that multiple articles in a small student newspaper do not satisfy N) and I will leave it to the individual to decide that - but I did think it warranted mention. Arkyan 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - notable only for her medical condition (if that), which is directly against WP:BIO. Definite COI ("Up-and-coming star in nutritional science"? and the main contributor seems to be her widower). Also WP:NOT advertising space for galas and the foundation. WP:NOT a memorial. Simply put, this is not an appropriate use of the Wiki. MSJapan 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment 1 The article has been revised again in an effort to remove all forms of opinion and bias. Evidence for COI ("Up-and-coming star in nutritional science") has been removed. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment 2 The only thing reported about the gala and foundation is fact supported by references. The gala and foundation are two things that make Kayla notable and assert her significance. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment 3 This is not a memorial. Yes she is fondly remembered, but Yes there are notable elements of Kayla beyond being fondly remembered. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per MSJapan / Blaxthos 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Commensuration Argues for Inclusion - From an objective viewpoint, this article is facing deletion for one reason only, namely, this article is meaningless for those not involved in that particular region. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that there is limitless space as well as a simple and fair threshold that must be met for an article to be included. This article meets those (at least when I viewed it just now)requirements. I think several of the arguments for deletion are now obsolete or hold no water (MSJapan and Arbiteroftruth). "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source." "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view." This article meets these two criteria (admittedly this article has some flavor of opinion). The information in this article may not all be attributable, but I see several sources listed. These sources are easily not "questionable or self-published sources". (A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.) I also see that this article may have been very heavily slanted at one time, but it is now apparently no more slanted than several articles that are widley accepted. Therefore, it meets the two major hurdles (a somewhat neutral viewpoint and reliable secondary sources) You can not judge inclusion of this article based on regiospecific interest. Remember that something can be important regionally, and yet mean nothing to 80% or 90% of others (the election of a mayor, or her resignation relative to poor conduct). That is one of the wonderful facets of all of this. By the rules alone, it can stay. Blackfrancis 03:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— Blackfrancis ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Strong keep per excellent argument above by Blackfrancis. The sources provided are sufficient to establish notability as per WP:N. Sources are required to be reliable, not notable. As long as a source is reliable, it goes a way toward satisfying the notability criterion. My condolences to Mr. Karhohs. -- Black Falcon 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Blackfrancis and Black Falcon. — Carolfrog 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - While many of the cited articles are from the UNR newspaper, two are from the local CBS affiliate. This shows that the topic meets the "multiple, non-trivial" requirement of WP:N. I will admit, it isn't the most notable thing ever, but it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Y| yukichigai ( ramble argue check) 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Comment- Yukichigai, this article is, by no stretch, notable. I, myself, made local news a couple of times for positive reasons and I made school newspapers as well in the past. I am also a news reporter for a university student TV, but so what? Does that give me a ticket to Wikipedia? This story is very tragic, I know, but that should not cloud our judgement. Wikipedia is not a memorial for the departed. We MUST not let emotions cloud our decision. This article will survive well in blogosphere, but not on Wikipedia. She only made news for her illness, and she is hardly the first person to have that kind of brain tumor. There are more famous people with the same diseases who still lives or have departed. This page is not notable. Arbiteroftruth 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, but only if rewritten I must admit I'm a bit of an inclusionist, or else I would probably vote delete. Just on the hairy edge of notability. However, as written, the article reads more like a memorial page. In particular, the "Resources Kayla found helpful" section is about as unencyclopedic as you can get. Like Arbiter says, don't let emotion cloud it. Tragic story, but Wikipedia is not the place for memorial pages. -- Jaysweet 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the author has made a valiant effort to cleanup the article to meet Wikipedia standards and I have to commend the effort. Based on a narrow interpretation of WP:N it can be argued that the notability criteria has now been met, however I have to admit that I am unconvinced. The articles all read like local human interest stories rather than having much substance. At the risk of sounding insensitive, when you filter out all the fluff about where she grew up and who she married, the only thing she did to establish any real notability was to die of an unfortunate illness. As far as the foundation in her name or related events establishing some notoriety, that may be a different story, but the story of a nice, well liked girl who died in sad circumstances is still not encyclopedic material. Arkyan 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - Here's a passage from WP:N on notability --- Notability is generally permanent

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.

---

With that said, do we expect this person who has since departed to retain the "notability" (if we can even call it that) 6 months from now? True, her families will remember her, but people as an ordinary citizen, people like me, would most likely (pretty much certain to) move on. I don't think any Average Joe would continue to mourn this person's passing after a few weeks.

Like I said earlier, what I am doing here is unclouded by conflicts of interests, as we cannot let our emotions get in the way of editing Wikipedia. My sympathies are with the Karhohs family for their loss, but this is not, was not, and will never be, a ticket to an article on Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Notability has nothing to do with whether people will "remember" something. Very few people "remember" James Polk, but that has no bearing on his notability. The passage you cite actually weakens your point. According to it, if a subject passes WP:N once (which it has done), it is taken to have passed it over time, even if coverage of the subject decreases. Once satisfied, always satisfied. Whether that's a good thing or not can be debated, but as it stands, this article has passed WP:N. -- Black Falcon 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Black Falcon, if we take emotions out of it, this article has not passed the threshold by any length. Hence, the rule that it will never pass the threshold. It never reached the standards for inclusion! Arbiteroftruth 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

    • Arbiteroftruth, the threshold is: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works that are independent of the subject of the article. -- Black Falcon 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
      • A sympathy package story from a TV station and some articles from a campus newspapers does not count, my friend. look at this, a man who suffered from the same illness whose battle was documented by BBC news as a blog on its website, with interviews conducted and shown to the British public. The news of his death was broadcast all over the world via BBC World. THIS is notability. Arbiteroftruth 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
        • This bias (even if perhaps a valid one) against a "sympathy package story from a TV station" or an article "from a campus newspaper" is not grounded in any policy or guideline. Per our rules, this article qualifies for inclusion. Pointing me to another person who's received more coverage doesn't prove much, as there are also millions of people that receive less coverage. Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument and the points you raise. But as I see it, this article meets WP's current policies and the fact that it is well-attributed leaves me without incentive to even try to justify its deletion. I hope this clarifies my position and arguments so far. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

How about we move the page to Karhoh's userpage, and delete the main entry on Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply

  • Given my opinion that this article meets WP policies and guidelines, I do not see such a move as warranted. However, I would likely support such a move if User:karhohs himself requests the removal of the page from the article mainspace (not resulting from undue pressure, of course). The article has already received non-minor edits from other editors, so {{ db-author}} is no longer applicable. But again, I might support removal of the article out of WP:BLP concerns relevant to Mrs. Nebeker Karhohs' family, but only if it is author-requested. I should note here that I only speak/write for myself, and other editors who have expressed "keep" opinions here may not agree with me on this point. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The two CBS affiliate pieces on her satisfy WP:BIO. We might not like the reason for her "notablity", ie "She's famous becuase of her illness," but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. -- Oakshade 02:13, 11 March 2007 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kayla_Nebeker_Karhohs&oldid=1071555331"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE