Deletion of Kayla Nebeker Karhohs

Comment: The two CBS affiliate pieces on her satisfy .  We might not like the reason for her "notablity", ie "She's famous becuase of her illness," but  is not a reason to delete an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: 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 otablity and . Her story is unfortunate, but that doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:COI)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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 #MEMORIAL|memorials either
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX||WP:NOT)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Remember that #OR|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Again, AfD is technically not a vote.  #How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette states, ''"The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."''  He has provided an argument and made a recommendation of "do not delete".  It is ''recommended'' that editors should be cautious of participating in discussions about subjects that they are personally close to (such as people or companies), but when it comes to AfD, the author of an article should be given no more or less consideration than any other editor
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: Per  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 OTNEWS, a disputed guideline proposal for subjects of news stories
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTNEWS)