Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camilla Lyman

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Rossami (talk) 09:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Camilla Lyman

If google can only turn up 30 unique hits [1], is this late transvestite millionaire worthy of note and inclusion on Wikipedia? Does the value this brings to our readers ultimately outweigh the cost of disk space to our servers? GRider\^talk 00:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable enough. Zzyzx11 02:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
maybe, see http://www.boston.com/news/daily/09/heiress.htm i don't really see any benefit to deleting this. Wolfman 05:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems notable enough, given that she was featured on Unsolved Mysteries. --Death phoenix 06:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and expand. Just scrapes in for notability for me. Megan1967 06:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment -- Just because she was on Unsolved Mysteries, does that make her notable enough? And going a step further: Does that mean that anybody who was on Unsolved Mysteries make them notable, and thus eligible to be in Wikipedia? Zzyzx11 06:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Okay, let me clarify. She's an unusual enough subject. The circumstances of her death is unusual enough. This is not a vanity article, and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we don't have to keep Wikipedia trimmed down to a small size. Hence, yes, I believe she is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, if people are willing to write an article on anyone who was featured on Unsolved Mysteries, I say go ahead. As long as it's not a vanity piece, I have no problems with that. --Death phoenix 06:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Being murdered under mysterious circumstances does not make you notable, not even if you are one of the few female-to-male transsexuals out there, and not even if your murder does get onto Unsolved Mysteries. --Angr 07:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hmm I can vote keep on the basis of "does the value this brings to our readers ultimately outweigh the cost of disk space to our servers?". I like that argument, I can vote "keep" on almost everything verifiable with that. Kappa 09:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with Kappa. An argument that lets you keep almost everything verifiable, is not useful for determining encyclopedia entries. Delete as this person isn't notable. Radiant! 09:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Rats, I thought it sounded too good to be true. Kappa 11:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Trilobite (Talk) 10:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The nominator's question is wrong, since VfD isn't a cost/benefit analysis. Even if it were, disk space isn't the only cost. If that were the analysis, we'd keep everything, including the vanity, since disk space costs are negligible. I'm not sure GRider didn't nominate this to make a point, which would be "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". All that said, I agree with the previous voters who argued that being murdered does not make you encyclopdically notable, unsolved or otherwise; nor does being a transexual millionaire. --BM 16:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think this passes the notability bar. The poor victim's sexuality and wallet are tittilating, but don't really make her/him any more notable than any other victim profiled on Unsolved Mysteries, who are notable only for their untimely end, not for anything done during their lifetimes. Katefan0 20:14, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Spinboy 21:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Half keep. —RaD Man (talk) 21:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -Sean Curtin 01:30, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. "Transsexual" and "millionaire" go together in so few sentences without the word "not" in between them that she seems almost (but not quite) noteworthy in her own right just for that. Combined with the mysterious disappearance and its moderate publicity makes this just barely squeak the notability radar, IMO, but just barely. BenSamples 05:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep Yuckfoo 04:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 06:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, gruesome yet there's a possibility that she/he/it is notable. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep due to media coverage. And because it's so damn odd. Gamaliel
Keep — Linnwood 06:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unless expanded greatly. Brookie 17:07, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep but it does need expansion which I actually was going to work on Real Soon Now but my life (and wife) keep interfering with Wikiholic pursuits ;Bear 04:23, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
Keep, notable media coverage. JamesBurns 09:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.