Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie 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 delete. The keep arguments do not convincingly counter WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." This is, like all such cases, tragic and horrifying, but there is nothing to suggest any long-term significance. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Carter

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. While tragic and horrendous, I see nothing more than a routine murder/trial. TM

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many things in this particular case are notable, sutch as how the girl was treated and how the closing argument was made. Also the bike race makes it notable, and ofcourse the scholarship which is presented in one of the sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Child sexual abuse laws in the United States. References #1 and #5 consist of realtively insignificant coverage about the subject and bike race in local news sources. This fails WP:NOTNEWS. References #3 and #4 are from a website attempting to raise awareness about child abuse; it does not appear to fulfill the "reliable source" criteria. The strongest argument for keeping is reference #2, a document from the South Carolina legislature, which gives a brief overview of the case and the bill that was drawn-up. The vast majority of GHits for "Stephanie's Law", however, refer to legislation in another state. Location (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, BabbaQ seems to conflate "I think it's important" with Wikipedia's definition of notability. There is nothing in the GNG giving presumptive notability to the honoree of bike races, nor to those in whose name a scholarship is given, nor to fundraisers provoked by closing arguments in criminal trials, even when such allegations are supported by reliable sources, which is not the case here. What elements of the GNG or any pertinent notability criteria does anyone think are met here? So far, it looks like a WP:ONEEVENT case to me. Ravenswing 05:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more deep then a few wikipedia guidelines. Interest and notability is also a factor. WP:ONEEVENT doesnt apply here as of murder,bike race,scholarship etc etc... time to read trough that section again I pressume.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: However, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are the only criteria we can use to assess articles at AfD. Unsupported emotional arguments are given very little credence here, the more so in that "interest" and "notability" are subjective values. ONEEVENT most certainly does apply here; the subject's sole claim to notability is as a crime victim, without which no one would be attempting fundraising efforts in her name. Ravenswing 14:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because a victim of a crime doesn't make it notable.(she is not notable outside the crime) Of course, I understand feelings to keep this page. Soewinhan (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (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.