Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Harendorf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kari Harendorf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Only claim to fame is she was on a short lived show that followed her and her dog around, not notable IMO.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 09:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, since it improves the encyclopedia to have this information than to delete it. Hiding T 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no source but IMDb, not notable by the standard of WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to keeping information that improves the encyclopedia? Hiding T 11:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom; what part of WP:BIO does she fulfill? And as far as "keeping information that improves the encyclopedia" goes, what evidence exists that this does? RGTraynor 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What evidence exists that it doesn't. Burden of proof is not mine. Hiding T 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In point of fact, it is. ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged ... In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." RGTraynor 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In point of fact it isn't. The action is not on my part, it is on that of the deletioner, since keeping is the status quo, not a change. But, my reason for keeping is that this article provides information for those people who are looking for it on this particular person. Consensus will dictate the outcome. Hiding T 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I must pipe in here, burden of proof is on the creator of the article or the supports to prove its worthy of an article. I could find the relevant link if you actually need me too. You have to prove they are notable, we don't have to prove they are not notable. -Djsasso (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Ignoring all rules is a poor substitite for doing a bit of searching. The subject is notable because she is covered in multiple reliable sources. It's apparent that she's known for dog yoga with these strings of articles [1], [2], and [3] aongst many more that turn up in a google news search. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first link is a trivial mention four sentences long in an article of capsule descriptions. The second link quotes Harendorf (among a few others) but is not about her, as WP:GNG requires. The third (short) link is about her show. Do you have any substantial, non-trivial sources? RGTraynor 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - the ones listed were the ones that weren't behind pay-walls. This, based on the sumary, would be about her and her show. Taken in combination with other shorter articles is enough for me to say keep , as the notability bar is set rather low. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't not meet WP:RS or WP:Notability. -Djsasso (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (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.