Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose (4th nomination)

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 delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose[edit]

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

Local notability, only covered in one local newspaper over a period of about 8 months. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Lara 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good coverage, and it seems to have stirred even parliamentary debate, which raises the notability enough to be over sea level. I think that the depth of article coverage is a bit exaggerated (a shorter article would be enough), but AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep- it was Clea Rose case at some point, not sure why it still isn't. Any rate, cover the event, not the person, and the event seems to have plenty of lasting notabilityUmbralcorax (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep--what Umbralcorax said. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with move to Clea Rose case. The press in Australia maintained a keen interest in the case, in which a minor driving a stolen car hit and killed Rose, after being pursued at high speed by police. Police security camera footage of the area disappeared or the cameras malfunctioned. There was parliamentary hue and cry, and an eventual inquest, although oddly there is no press coverage online of the inquest finding,s despite steady coverage of the inquest from May to December 2007. There is continuing coverage of subsequent violations by the then-minor driver. The "keep" is weak because I see no evidence of changes in the high-speed pursuit policies for "suspicious cars," despite the widespread criticism. Articles about crime victims or accident victims should be titled to reflect they are not memorial articles about the previously non-notable person. This is consistent with WP:NOTMEMORIAL and other crime/accident stories about someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The first editor who moved it back to Clea Rose said it was not a "case" it was a "death." In fact it was a case. Edison (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as in the previous times this has been discussed for removal, while certainly locally notable there is no evidence that the case/death/accident has resulted in significant notable changes to laws/procedures in Canberra or wider, nor is their significant continuing news coverage ... so it would seem to fail notability. Re thought that discussion in Au parliament confers notability - Hansard records thousands of items raised in parliament each year that aren't, eventually, notable. Additionally, the article seems to stray very close to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Lissajous (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as a bio, this would fall under WP:ONEEVENT, but that event is probably notable enough for an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don;t think this is actually of general notability. If kept, should be moved, or possibly used as a section of an article on Police pursuit in Australia, or some similar appropriate topic. The emphasis on sentencing details etc. are irrelevant to any actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/move/redirect/delete/change. This article is not about Clea Rose. This is about a news event she was unfortunatley involved in. If this survives past being a news event (see WP:NOTNEWS) it should be changed to the event. She deserves better than being her passing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rename, although I'd like something better than just adding "case". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial site and not everything newsworthy is notable. Orderinchaos 03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This woman has done nothing that meets WP notability standard. The most notable thing about her is that she was run over and that is not enough. Keep the Chlea Rose Case as that is what was got coverage. Even the hit and run driver is more notable as he keeps popping up in the papers.--filceolaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Rename to something about the case. The article should be about the event. Clea Rose herself is not notable. decltype (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but Keep. Questions about this case were raised in the parliament of the Australian Capital Territory; I'd say that's clear evidence of notability. It had political ramifications, and was still being covered by the media up to two years after the event. It's arguable that the page needs to be updated, and probably moved back to Clea Rose case, but I don't see the case for deleting it. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2009 (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.