Jimmy Wales wrote:

But imagine if someone were to write a Wikipedia article using precisely

the (daft, if

you ask me) arguments that Anthony DiPierro has been using. It is a confirmable story, we do know a number of fairly trivial facts about her, and... we might imagine... this *could* become an idiotic short lived meme among the immature segment of the under-17 crowd on the Internet, as did Brian Peppers.

Should we therefore have an article? Let's assume that we can verify the story easily enough. (Maybe one newspaper keeps its archives online for free... maybe a dozen blogs pick up the story.)

I would vote "delete, nn - human dignity". A full explanation would be: For goodness sake, leave the poor woman alone.

As a relative newcomer to the mailing list, after following the "Borderline Notable Bios (yes, again)" thread for several days, I respectfully believe that articles like Brian Peppers and the woman named in the AP story have not place in Wikipedia, and I wish to make a two points in this regard. First, Wikipedia certainly should not be a sex offender registry, because all but a handful of states pay good money to maintain online sex offender registries. Nor should Wikipedia become a police blotter (as Sydney pointed out). I doubt it is prudent to allow a felony conviction alone establish notablility, becuase considering that more than a million people are currently imprisoned in the United State, just creating and maintaing articles on all convicted felons would likely consumed vast amount of Wikipedia editorial resources.

-Danntm