Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chavis Carter

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chavis Carter[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel sorry for Chavis, but I dont think this is a significant event. See WP:NOTABLE Veryhuman (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM. The event may become notable, but the individual is not. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 22:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to reconsider. I still do not yet remove my vote. The article should not have been moved during the AfD (see WP:NOMOVE), especially since it changes the scope of the article. It was originally a makeshift biography, it is now about an event. Per may original comment, the event may become notable. So while the article is more appropriate being about an event than about a person, I feel it was moved to avoid deletion, as it is more likely to meet WP:EVENT than WP:VICTIM. In my opinion, it is iffy if it meets WP:EVENT or not, as it says

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
— WP:EVENT

Enduring significance is the key, as the event has yet to demonstrate that. It is likely that it will, and when it does, it can be recreated. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 20:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:VICTIM. Pburka (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw !vote. News coverage is increasing rapidly. See this morning's New York Times. No opinion for now. Pburka (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have moved the page to Death of Chavis Carter so the victim/perp/one-event objections are now moot. Article may or may not meet GNG, but based on the amount of coverage received so far, I think it likely will (I have added many refs to the article). .Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, moving pages during an AfD gives the closing admin headaches. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, as well as the subsections WP:EFFECT (i.e. no evidence that the death has yet resulted in different laws or police procedures), WP:GEOSCOPE (i.e. very few reports outside of Arkansas, the local area of interest), WP:INDEPTH (i.e. no coverage in books, major news magazines, or TV news specialty shows), WP:PERSISTENCE (i.e. one brief news spike), and possibly WP:DIVERSE (i.e. no significant national or international coverage). (Obviously fails WP:VICTIM as a biographical article.) Location (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While obviously persistence is an unknown at this point since the event is new, I believe some of your other assertions are incorrect. The FBI has announced an investigation, the NY Daily news, wrote a story, MSNBC's National "Ed Show" ran a story, NBC's "The Grio" has run several stories, as well as Vibe, Think Progress, HuffPost, DemocracyNow, BET, Gawker, Reason Online, CBS (via the AP). I have added many refs (although not inline footnotes yet) that I believe contradict the majority of your argument, particularly WP:DIVERSE, and WP:INDEPTH. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An investigation following an incident is routine and is not sufficient to pass WP:EFFECT. I fail to see how rehashing a report that "a handcuffed man died in the back of a police car due to a gunshot and we don't know why" yet passes the qualifications of "significant" or "in-depth" in WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Reporting of breaking news stories also fail WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Location (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- for now and revisit in 3 or 6 months. --Mollskman (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete NOTNEWS - we dont let an article sit and see if it develops notability. We delete a non notable article and allow recreation IF it develops notability later. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, neither. If the article does have potential but no notability then it should be placed in the article incubator. But even then this event is starting to gain traction. If this does become stagnant and almost no national controversy is aroused (which isn't likely), then the article should be deleted. But for now, it would be more efficient to leave this up or incubate it rather than irreversibly burn the article.--Valadar917 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to review my !vote and I still do not see that this is anything at this time to support an encyclopedic article. once the investigation is completed then there might be. or if there are some changes in laws or police procedures that come into effect because of the incident. or if it becomes a major issue in upcoming elections. or if the protests spark riots that burn down half the city. but none of those have happened yet. as it stands, it is a run of the mill case of questionable happenings by the police that have sparked run of the mill protests to seek further investigations into those actions.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is now getting international attention http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/03/chavis-carter-handduffed-shooting?newsfeed=true Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per international coverage. seem to pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it Increasing coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWcomputer (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment, additional international coverage

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Death of Chavis Carter. Continuing coverage, now including international. Article needs substantial attention to add basic facts (for example, where are the dates?), wikilinks and update.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it needs major improvement. I didnt want to put in effort if its going to be just summarily deleted though. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.