Deletion of Dog poop girl (4th nomination)

Comment: The nomination obviously fails  as there are obvious places one might merge this rather than delete it such as Internet vigilantism and the attempt to PROD the article shows a lack of attention to the numerous previous discussions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: to Internet vigilantism per BLP and #NEWS. Does not fulfill "historic notability" requirement and all relevant information is already contained within Internet vigilantism, making this article redundant and unnecessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:SBST)

Comment: of this odorferous article. The article is about an event and its many repercussions, and uses as article name, the "name" given the event in sources. The article is about the event and its repercussions, not about the woman. The woman discussed became herself a public figure when she personally made a public apology. So covering her (in)actions, the public's outcry, the subsequent results, and her public aplogy is not a BLP violation... no more than an article about Mark David Chapman is a violation. And it does demonstrate hitorical notability as shown by its multiple sources... heck, I love that the failed 2005 deletion effort itself even made the news: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/arts/30cats.html?_r=1 New York Times.  To those quoting #NEWS, it has to be remembered that if it happened today or yesterday, it was news.... but if it happened 4 or 5 or 20 or 50 years ago, it has become history and can be treated properly in retrospect. Point here being is that wikipedia depends quite heavily on "news" as sources for its articles. Nearly everything within these pages was "news" at one time or another. The goal here is to give balanced coverage of a subject and source back to reliable sources... and that has been done. And to thos faling back on  as an argument, this is not a BLP and ONEEVENT does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: There's no need to keep having this discussion,  clearly applies here and the previous AfDs should stand ''until something actually changes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED)

Comment: Regarding , 1E,  etc. my understanding of the English language is that the subject of the article is actually the girl ("dog poop" is an identifier/adjective) and her inaction. The purpose of  is to avoid defamation and whether explicitly named or not the individual is readily identifiable from the information presented. As such I'd say all the votes citing BLP* are absolutely valid
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP1E||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BLP)

Comment: discussed in the New York Times along with other . http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22dog+poop+girl%22
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Fails  miserably, not historically notable () and extremely unlikely to result in secondary stories or precedent (ews articles). Dupe of information already in internet vigilante so no merge necessary. If the serious crime covered in YouTube cat abuse incident (which received ''extensive'' international coverage) is not clearly notable even on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_4|review then this "man bites dog" filler story certainly isn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SBST||WP:NOTNEWS||WP:N)