Deletion of Diana Napolis

Comment: Can editors please desist from canvassing at Wikipedia Review? A series of brief delete !votes derive from the posting there, and should be given less weight as Wikipedia Review is known to be hardline on BLPs. WP:NOTNEWS could apply to this case, but for the couple of books that discuss the case. Most of the news coverage is local, her case wasn't given very much attention by the media. I'm surprised nobody has looked at : #2 is satisfied, i.e. "The victim is a renowned world figure". I'm in two minds, but keep it is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:PERP)

Comment: per : "''The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered.''" Never mind the technicalities of BLP1E and NOTNEWS, Scott Mac has it right: "''further publicising the case of a person who has received passing media attention only because of activities that indicate mental instability is a piss poor thing to do
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: repeated mention in multiple news sources, popular magazines and scholarly books.  Sails pass , has significant coverage (numerous articles exclusively about her and her actions both as an on-line presence in the satanic ritual abuse phenomenon and for celebrity stalking) in reliable, secondary sources (People (magazine)|''People'', ''The San Diego Union-Tribune'', books by scholarly publishing houses), well independent of the subject.  Easily enough for a stand-alone article.  Note that Napolis is famous for at least ''two'' things - her on-line presence in the SRA circumstances (resulting in news articles and books covering how her identity was revealed and her impact on personal privacy concerns) and for stalking two extremely high-profile celebrities (four more news articles).  As for harm to the subject - everything is sourced, wikipedia is not therapy, pages are not deleted because they might hurt someone's feelings, and consider the impact of Napolis' past (and future) accusations against, say, Elisabeth Loftus, Carol Hopkins and Michael Aquino.  Loftus has been attacked at conferences based on accusations revolving around the SRA moral panic.  Keep, utter, utter keep.  I regularly monitor the page, and have never seen evidence of Napolis editing the page via sock puppets (however, the permabanned
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: passes  by a wide margin.  There is sustained coverage from 1997http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1997/05/3970http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/access/1243471461.html?dids=1243471461:1243471461&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Jun+24%2C+1997&author=Thomas+Kupper&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&desc=Internet+provider+sued+over+postings+|+S.D.+company+targeted+in+defamation+case&pqatl=googlehttp://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SJ&s_site=mercurynews&p_multi=SJ&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB720BB2C33E809&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM to 2003http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-108416932.htmlhttp://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/416934451.html?dids=416934451:416934451&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+01%2C+2003&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=A+big+following&pqatl=google of a number of different events of considerable importance, including full-article mentions in major international newspapers, as well as a significant mention in at least one book concerning her role in the satanic ritual abuse moral panic.http://books.google.com/books?id=_e8ZkJBtz0EC&pg=PA234&dq=%22Diana+Napolis%22&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=%22Diana%20Napolis%22&f=false  Her actions are decidedly not private, having ensnared many people and attracted international interest.  Both of the issues for which she is known - the child abuse witch hunts and stalking of celebrities - are serious matters that deserve encyclopedic treatment, and she was one of the better known and more prolific contributors to both, and continues to be mentioned the world over in that context.http://www.side2.no/kjendis/article2281465.ecehttp://magazine.foxtv.it/2009/01/13/un-ordine-restrittivo-contro-stalker-di-jennifer-l-hewitt/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-16333567.html  It is too bad that she is mentally ill but that is not an exclusion criterion for otherwise notable individuals.  If anything it points to a BLP concern in how to describe her actions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Meets  and  criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:RS)

Comment: per WLU and others.  Clearly meets .  She is also notable for much more than simply "one event" as one of the delete voters has stated.  As WLU points out her involvement with SRA has received attention from scholars as well.  There is simply no policy rationale for deleting this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)