Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Carr

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. The main "delete" argument was WP:BIO1E, while the "keep" !votes attempted to refute that assertion. The "keep" !votes based on uniqueness have no basis in policy. However, the "delete" !voters have failed to address the issue of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE brought up by Victor falk. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Carr[edit]

Emilia Carr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual known for local WP:ONEVENT. ttonyb (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - OneEvent doesnt apply here. She is the first woman since 1992 to be sentenced in her county, and its the Aileen Wournos connection, she is only the second woman to be on Floridas death row as of now. I could go on and on. Its a keeper for me. It could need some rewrite perhaps as I did it in quite a hurry as I had other business but that can be fixed also. Also local doesnt automaticly means not notable, so that no reason for deletion either.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would also like to add that I say Keep because it is a major story reported in various media in the whole US state of Florida and not only a local story for a certain Florida area.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that she is unique. There's a difference between unique and WP:NOTABLE. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But cant unique also equal notable?. It seems a bit like you ruling out a very mutch so truth that women on death row are really unusual. Also the other factors involved in this particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also as stated below when doing a simple google search on Emilia Carr you get 583,000 hits so it is a widely publicized case.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

completely flawed argument for notability. see WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than well aware of the policy LibStar. It says that googlehits alone don't guarantee notability or lack thereof. They can certainly be used as evidence though. What evidence do you offer in opposition? Nada.... NickCT (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course unique can be notable, but unique is not necessarily notable. I have a unique freckle on my rear. I wouldn't call it particularly notable.
Googling (Emilia Carr) will give you any article with the name Emilia and Carr in it. For instance, a page with "Emilia and her best friend Carr went to the park". Obviously not relevant. Google ("Emilia Carr") gives you that exact name and 4,650 hits, but there are a lot of Emilia Carr's out there; hence you get pages with stuff like "Emilia Carr the rodeo clown from China arrived in Tuscon". Again, clearly not relevant. Google ("Emilia Carr" death sentence) - 2,400 hits or ("Heather Strong" "Emilia Carr") - 550 hits for actual relevant hits. It's better to test using Google News or Yahoo News, as those return actual reliable sources. As I said in my comments below, search engine testing makes this topic look barely notable at best. NickCT (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously comparing a freckle to the mentioned case of Emilia Carr. I mean seriously?. Im still not convinced as the number of articles that you are mentioning consists of Emilia Carr material is still enough to point towards notability for this individual.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wasn't "comparing a freckle to the mentioned case of Emilia Carr". I was trying to explain the difference between "unique" and "notable". NickCT (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I will limit myself to commenting here as I am helping to clean up the article per request. ONEEVENT is not a blanket policy for deletion of articles, but a guideline to determine whether an article about the event or the individual(s) involved is more appropriate in the context of notability. Sadly, the execution of a female inmate is more unique than a murder in this case. KimChee (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand a woman being sentenced to death is by media reporting often more notable than a man getting sentenced to death because its mutch more rare that a woman gets to see the inside of death row.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if it was just about the murder, then I think this may have had to go. However, this article is about a person who has become only the second woman on Florida's death row for the crime, and that, for me, makes it worth keeping. Orphan Wiki 13:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the circumstances discussed above, she's notable. I don't think this is ca case for changing the title to Murder of ....; given the sentence, it's now Carr who is the more notable DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)killing people is notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that last phrase was a partial sentence from a draft, & I did not mean to include it--it is not true unless there is some special reason, which there is here, DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia.--195.84.173.30 (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concur, the notability from the sentence itself trumps ONEEVENT, I think. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being a female on death row definitely gives her notability --Errant (chat!) 14:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a female ond eath row is notable, even beyond the crime itself.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not seeing the notability of this event. There are only two main sources, and they are local media. This person does not appear to have attracted attention beyond the local community. The argument for notability appears to be built entirely on the premise that this person is one of only two females awaiting the death sentence in Florida - but that argument is not provided for within our guidelines, and seems to be one that is being used purely for this discussion. Are we creating a new notability criteria here? And what is the notability exactly? Is the notability that Florida has few females sentenced to death (is that really notable?) or is the person sentenced to death notable? And what would happen if tomorrow 100 women were sentenced to death in Florida? That event in itself might be notable, but what would happen to this individual's notability then? She would be one of over 100 women.... It seems to me that this person committed a crime which did not generate any media interest beyond the local area. That she is one of two females currently on Death Row in Florida is incidental and changeable, and is more reflective of some form of comment on the death penalty in Florida. This is a list of Women Who Have Received The Death Penalty in Florida, which of these would be notable? And would it depend on how many other women were imprisoned at the same time as them? I'm not convinced here. I think this person and Tiffany Cole might be mentioned in footnotes to an article on Florida's Death Row, but I'm not yet convinced they are notable enough in themselves. SilkTork *YES! 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject appears to meet the general notability guideline in regard to its sources. There is no mention in these guidelines about the locality of citations, but I think you do bring up a fair question about this; I encountered a similar query during FA review of another article on capital punishment. Some coverage of Carr's death sentence has been carried by national news organizations, but in searching for biographical information for the article, the best sources have generally been the local media as they have been the ones more interested in the background of the suspects and victim(s) outside of the criminal case itself. KimChee (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that I don't think the article does meet GNG. The crime she is imprisoned for is a single event that has attracted no significant attention beyond the local media. GNG has this: "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." The main claim for this person's notability is not the crime, but that she is one of two women currently on Death Row in Florida. But I am not convinced that such a claim is in itself valid, and I don't see any guideline regarding such a claim. Without some guideline saying that being one of 16 women who have been sentenced to death in Florida is significant, I don't see that our current guidelines support this article. That she is currently one of two is a tenuous claim to notability as that number can change at any point - and as notability is not temporary I don't quite understand why a temporary situation out of her or our control is a sign of notability. My point being that if the notability is dependent on there being only one other woman on Death Row in Florida, and then that number changes, then the claim to notability will have shifted. If she was the first woman sentenced to death, that would be notable, or the last woman executed before the law changed, etc. There are circumstances which would ALWAYS be true. Being one of two at this moment in time doesn't appear to me to be highly significant. So, given that she doesn't meet GNG, specifically WP:NTEMP, and doesn't meet WP:BLP1E / WP:ONEVENT, and various aspects in WP:EVENT including WP:GEOSCOPE, then I am genuinely struggling to see what people are a)seeing as notable in this article and b)where the guidelines are regarding such notability. The more I look at this the more I am seeing that our guidelines are written to disallow such articles. SilkTork *YES! 16:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the fact remains that me and eight other users here thinks that her being one of few females on death row is giving this article notability. Also as KimChee says and I agree the subject is within the general notability guidelines for inclusion. Also local story/person doesnt automaticly means non-notable. I know that many people are against these kind of articles but it doesnt change the fact that murder is notable in many occasions. It also does pass ONEEVENT per sentencing, woman on death row, aileen wournos connection etc etc.. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that several people have made a comment such that being a woman sentenced to death is notable, and that is the key to this debate. My concern is that I don't see a guideline which says that such a situation is acceptable as a rationale for notability, while I see several guidelines which indicate that this sort of article is not notable. Our guidelines do reflect consensus, and if there is a general consensus that a female being sentenced to death is notable, then we should write that into our guidelines. If we had such a statement then we wouldn't have the situation of this AfD. What is the Aileen Wuornos connection? SilkTork *YES! 16:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry, WP:ONEEVENT to a T. Keepers that are making vague hand-waves at some sort of "being a woman on death row is notable" assertion without actually showing that that is a notable exception are at best unhelpful, at worst disingenuous. Wournos was notable for being a female serial killer, a true rarity supported by reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, ONEEVENT at its clearest. In the U.S., mere death sentence doesn't convey notability, even on a woman; no comparison to Wuornos (a genuine controversy). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry but have to disagree with you both. Females on death row are a rarety. Just look at Florida, Carr is only the second at this time in the Women part of the death row. Carr definitly makes WP:ONEEVENT by far as a user said above... only her sentence in itself trumps WP:ONEEVENT. I still say Keep-.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we cant compare Aileen Wournos and Emilia Carr.. its like comparing apples and oranges. However the fact that Carr is the first woman from the same county as Wournos to be sentenced since the day Wournos was sentenced in 1992 is notable. And as I stated before a local story doesnt equal non notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What it amounts to is trivia, a semi-interesting factoid that the media can mention as they cover this story. Being rare or unusual does not qualify automatically one for notability. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to differ. Those factors in fact makes this article notable. Beyond the crime itself even. When including sentencing to death, being a female, the aileen wournos connection then we definitly have a Keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SilkTork's reasoning about WP:NTEMP is logically faulty. If, at some time in the future, thousands of women are executed in Florida, it will not hinder the fact that there was a time when it was a rarity, and therefore, articles about such exceptional and (and by then) historical cases would be notable in a future wikipedia. walk victor falk talk 17:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To briefly expand, the person has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and that is sufficient for notability. The "one event" argument doesn't seem to stick in a case like this. Many who have committed crimes fall in the same boat under one interpretation, yet have articles. E.g., Tiffany Cole, Richard Henyard, James Autry, James Hubbard, Jerry White (criminal), etc., etc. Perhaps not as notable as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda carty, but still enough that deletion would not better the project.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, i figured at some point someone would comment on my keep rationale (other than an improper retort of OTHERSTUFF). When I saw how commonly we have articles on people on death row, my oneevent concerns were ameliorated as an exception to notability.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was asked to explain my keep opinion above, as I was admittedly rather minimal in giving the reasoning. The sentence is what makes for the particular notability in this case. I would be prepared to argue that any actual execution in the US at this time is a major event, part of the historical record, and makes for notability. This does not now apply: her sentence has not yet been carried out, and I hope will not be, for there were none of the horrific circumstances that affect even those who oppose the death penalty; even if it is, it will, by the usual US appeals process, not be carried out for many years. The execution or proposed execution of a person in one of the protected groups in society, such a people who are still children, or those of low intelligence, is publicly considered a matter of special concern--it arouses a sense of unfairness even among those who support the death penalty. I think to the public, women are still one of these groups--whether this is still reasonable is not our concern. But the article is written disproportionately: the emphasis should not be on the details of the crime, but on the trial and sentencing. If there were only the choice between the present article and none, I would say none, on the principle that we are not a tabloid, a principle I have always endorsed. But editing to make a suitable article is possible, and a properly edited article would be appropriate. The attention here will be enough to ensure it is carried out. I don't work on crime topics usually, but if no one else does the necessary, I shall. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good response. And your concern can be fixed via editing so no major problem there. Thanks for explaining your stance more.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand a overall Google search on Emilia Carr gave 583,000 hits. That tells me that Emilia Carrs case and her as a person has been widely published.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to question if Yahoo News search engine is reliable as it is obviously wrong. With that many hits as Emilia Carr gets on a regular Google search something is wrong.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There are only 429 GHits and 2 GNEWS hits. One should use quotes to remove the individual word hits and to focus on the combined phrase/name. Also, please note the initial Google numbers are notoriously incorrect and one must go to the last page for the correct counts. ttonyb (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. But it doesnt change the fact that when searching for Emilia Carr on the regular Google you find alot more than 2 news stories on it. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment &ndash: Huh? There are two and only two news articles that show up for "Emilia Carr" on Google. See [1]. ttonyb (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you click on archives in the Google news search, you will find that media coverage of this case dates back to 2009. KimChee (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – You are absolutely correct, the number jumps to 11 or so. Thanks for pointing that out. ttonyb (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im not convinced. Sorry.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be sorry. In cases like this notability will be quite subjective. I see it one way, you see it another. That's all. I would point out however, that you did create this article, so it's somewhat unlikely you're going find my arguments convincing, regardless of how much logic they might have behind them. NickCT (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the county is merely trivia -- one of two women is a current event that is likely to change at any moment. Perhaps a small mention of her in the Aileen Wournos article, or in the county article in a future section about overly aggressive use of the death penalty, or even a sentence or two in an article about the death penalty in Florida. But it's not significant to the US or the world, and nothing in the article asserts notability to the US or the world.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Local doesnt equal non-notable. Also where do you get the information from that its likely to change at any moment? That sounds more like a personal believe or speculation than actual facts. The other woman sentenced was sentenced years ago. And as someone above here stated and I quote: If, at some time in the future, thousands of women are executed in Florida, it will not hinder the fact that there was a time when it was a rarity, and therefore, articles about such exceptional and (and by then) historical cases would be notable in a future wikipedia. We cant delete on an assumption or pure speculation of future events that might not even be happening and will not effect the notability anyway. One thing however that isnt an assumption or pure speculation is that females on death row are rare in the present time and in Florida as stated only two women are on death row, Emilia Carr is in fact notable. Peace out.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'm inclined to agree that WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP apply here. She doesn't seem sufficiently notable to pass our inclusion guidelines. Several of the comments above say things along the lines of 'she's notable for being a woman sentenced to death' - but I'm not convinced that women on death row are so uncommon that that automatically justifies an article for every single one. This report [2] states that there were 61 women on death row in January 2010; I don't think we need an article on each of them, if their sentence is the only 'notable' thing about them. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (As an aside: I was invited to comment on this discussion by User:BabbaQ. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robofish&diff=cur]) Robofish (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all thanks for responding;). However back to the topic, I dont really understant your statement about having an article about each of them. First of all we dont have an article about each of them because all of them might not first of all be created at all by someone but they all share one thing in common they are 1 of only 64 out of millions and millions of people in the US. That is in fact notable and in my opinion would infact give support to any of them to have an article about them as they are all unique. Also the fact that Carr only is the second woman on death row as of now is in fact notable and as established by some users above she trumps ONEEVENT. May I also say that only in Florida alone there are hundreds and hundreds of male death row inmates. Just to give a perspective on the 64 women total in whole of the US. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I stated to Robofish, we have to put the female death row question into perspective, today 64 women are on death row all over the US combined. When comparing to the male population only in Floridas death row we find hundreds upon hundreds of death row inmates. That gives a quite good perspective on the situation of uniqueness for this kind of articles and people. When then also considering the fact that only two women are on death row in Florida that gives them both in fact notability along with the remaining 62 women. Even though I doubt every single one of them will have an article created for them.:) It is in fact notable to be a female death row inmate today, like it or not its a fact.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After doing more research I found 238 inmates currently on Floridas death row. Only two are women. I rest my case on the notability on female and male death row inmates when it comes to uniqueness which is in fact a reason for inclusion in itself. Also people forget that juries tend not to give females the death sentences even in the most horrendous of murders so a death sentence for a female is both unusual and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you have looked into this yourself and concluded that based on your own research, being a female on death row is a unique and notable occurrence in the American penal system. Thank you for invalidating your !vote on this matter, per the now-obvious original research that is the primary basis of your conclusion. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Tarc, please note that WP:OR only applies to articles, not discussion in AfDs. BabbaQ's own research does not invalidate any of his opinion or his !vote. Coincidently, I do not agree with his opinion, but his WP:OR does not support invalidation. ttonyb (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. We can't just make things up based on our own opinion, that is the essence of OR. Whether it is article content or spurious notability arguments is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me and more than 10 other uses believe so yes. If you dont like it thats OK.. but please remain civil. I havent invalidated my opinion at all, actually your comment makes my opinion even more reasonable actually. While the "keep side" actually gives reasons for their believes in this persons notaiblity the "deletionists" only gives pure speculations about future events, and also referrs to guidelines which can be interpretated in a number of ways. Anyway, Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One event. I don't see anything that makes this bigger than an individual murder by an individual person. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the sentence itself trumps ONEEVENT. Then also count in all the other factors already mentioned above in messages from a number of individuals. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you've said that a couple of times already, I believe. Do you think I didn't read about the other factors? And didn't you read that a number of individuals have said this is ONEEVENT? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, if possible remain civil. No need for remarks of that kind, even if someone is of another opinion. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there is nothing uncivil about my remark. I do, however, resent the implication that you feel the need to point out what's already been said often enough in this discussion. Editors here, including myself, are perfectly capable of reading the entire discussion, and don't have to be reminded every time of what's already been said. It feels like badgering. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you refuse to acknowledge anything I do the same. You know..... hmm--BabbaQ (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no guideline regarding women sentenced to death,. Some people think it is notable, while others don't. At this stage in the AfD there is no clear consensus on that point of view, so we use our usual guide to notability, which is the range and depth of coverage in reliable sources. As this case is covered only in local media, there is no indication of notability. My reading of our guidelines is that articles such as this are not to be included on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 17:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just saying that ONEEVENT as most people here are referring to even the one putting this one up for deletion ar enot grounds for deleting this article. ONEEVENT can be twisted by all users both in favour of Keep and Delete of an article. What im also is confused about is that users here that says Delete claims that there is no guideline for this kind of articles but on the other hand there is non stating that "women on death row are simply not notable" either. Also silktork, local story isnt the same as non-notable. This is simply a guessing game were people can say delete or keep on pure speculation of future non-notability etc etc.. but the fact is that women on death row are extremely rare and infact notable in itself. As I have mentioned before other factors also pointing towards notability for this particular inmate.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We cant simply delete this article on pure speculations lets return in a few months and if nothing else has happened then or opinions are very strong at that time lets put it up for Afd again.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this time its so obvious that this Afd will end with No Consensus as neither side can refute the other sides arguments completely. Both sides have right in parts of its argument but its no way near a clear consensus for either of the sides. Also the speculations on both sides for notaiblity is a question of taste and shouldnt be the grounds for deletion. Peace out--BabbaQ (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question of taste? Nonsense. It's a disagreement about an issue of content and the applicability of our guidelines. Maybe your argument was based on "taste", but mine wasn't. Please don't preemptively decide how this is going to be closed. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say it again, please try to remain civil and dont take everything personal. It doesnt help your cause.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – BabbaQ, I see nothing WP:UNCIVIL in Drmies' comment nor do I see him taking any comments personally, he is simply voicing an opinion as you are. He is right, this is not a question of taste, but a question of meeting the guidelines. In addition, there is not a clear cut end to this AfD as evidenced by its relisting. Perhaps you should consider reading WP:STICK. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest WP:STICK to Drmies also;). That is my last message in this particular nonsense discussion. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In my opinion, BLP1E is irrelevant in that it helps determine whether notable material should be named after a person or an event. What I want to know first is whether or not this passes WP:GNG. There is obviously enough coverage in reliable sources to piece together an article that is relatively substantial, however, all the coverage seems to be from one, local geographic area. If or when the coverage goes nationwide, I will likely !vote for keep. Location (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Local story isnt necessary equal to non-notable. Also the argument can be twisted as this case has reached alot of attention in the state of Florida which makes it a major state story and thereby could be seen as something to Keep for that reason. Just as for example the winner of Miss Florida USA sometimes gets an article a long time before the major Miss USA pageant even though the girl only one the state pageant and not the national Miss USA pageant. And by that reasoning above you could even delete the Miss USA winners because they havent won the international Miss Universe final and only the national final. And what its all come down to is that Local isnt automaticly non-notable. (atleast not for simply being a local story). Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few sources to be found outside of the Ocala/Gainsville area, so it does not appear that this case has even received much attention in Florida. If there is no notability outside of the local area, then it's just news coverage. (When an individual is known for a single event, I believe WP:GEOSCOPE and other sub-sections of WP:EVENT should be relevant.) Location (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment excessive WP:BLUDGEONing is occurring here. Would the user in question please stop trying to dominate everything. You've made your point countless times. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If only you practised what you preached.;) I dont think you are aware of it but you yourself are sometimes WP:BLUDGEONing away pretty good. Anyway no point in discussing this any further. I have made my point in this discussion as you say pretty darn clear.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There is only local coverage for an article which runs afoul of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a directory of every criminal who gets her just punishment. No policy I can find says there is inherent notability for "woman on death row" articles. Edison (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some of the arguments above have been based on arguments like "she's a woman on death row therefore notable in my book" which has no grounding at all in policy. Instead we do have a specific policy in cases like this, WP:CRIME: "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person." Capital punishment in Florida (which doesn't even mention this article's subject!) would seem to cover this. The exceptions to that are if it is a "well documented historic event." I don't see that here, it's simply a local one off killing. So, with only very local coverage, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E seem to apply. Valenciano (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A textbook example of non-notability per WP:CRIME. The relative rarity of women on Florida's deathrow is immaterial, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. simply being a female on death row is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - while being a female on death row is certainly rarer than being a male, it alone is not a reason for notability, and this doesn't seem to extend beyond BLP1E. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - there's some interesting information here not just about the crime but about the prisoner's death row status. But WP:CRIME seems to cover this pretty well and has consensus. There are good reasons for not having an article on every murder to ever appear in a local newspaper. Probably better to cover this in a broader article about death row in the state. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERP. She doesn't meet the notability criteria for criminals. Further, the pertinent information in this article would be better included in the article Capital punishment in Florida. There is no need for a WP:Content fork on Carr.4meter4 (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, the article is notable. And it is covered by reliable sources. It should remain. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. you have failed to address how it meets WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Murder, female on death row, gives her notability. Was covered by lots reliable sources and has many hits on Google. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
being a female on death row is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to basically say to every single Keep sayer here that they are wrong. I referring to your own WP:BLUDGEONing comment to me a few days ago.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question what the Afd result of Colin Hatch has to do with Emilia Carr? its two different cases, like comparing apples and oranges.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously notable. Murderer, death row, has received much coverage, etc. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 21:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closing administrator. Most of these keep votes as "obviously notable" have not demonstrated how this article meets the notability guidelines at WP:PERP. They haven't addressed the issue of lasting notability and why this article should not be deleted per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that someone is a murderer on death row does not make them inherently notable. I ask that you not count votes and consider the policies involved carefully when making a close. Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closing administrator: It is not because she is "obviously notable" that this topic should be kept but because a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable news sources that are independent of the subject. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a valid response to WP:ONEEVENT concerns, though. You should know this by now. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc everyone has the right to voice their opinion, even if you yourself might not agree with it doesnt make it unvalid.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are usually just as bad, I'm afraid. Many people are calling for a deletion based on a specific reason. Some people are calling for keeping for a reason that does not address the actual point raised by the deletion calls. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your comments trying to invalid other peoples comments arent exactly the best ive seen on Wikipedia either. Your only reason as I see it still for doing it is that me and those you write to say Keep instead of Delete. Having different opinions doesnt equal invalid. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I have said. You are free to "vote" as you wish. But we have an article nominated for deletion because of WP:ONEEVENT, and simply saying "it is mentioned in reliable sources does not address that nomination rationale, since "one event" isn't about sourcing. If I ask "what is 2+2?", answering "apple" will never be an adequate response, no matter how many apple-voters there are. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt comments like this one from you Your comments are usually just as bad, I'm afraid. a try to invalid another persons comment? --BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Closing admin:I agree fully with ret.Prof this person has recieved significant coverage. Its simply guessing game from both sides on how Emilia Carrs notability will play out in the future. But per fact she is notable now as one of few women on death row all over america, only second woman in the state of Florida as of 2011 and many other reasons. The article is well-sourced. I could go on and on about how notable this article is. Also local doesnt equal non-notable, also WP:ONEVENT doesnt apply here as established by a number of "keep users".It should be Kept, thats my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's your opinion? I would never have guessed, given any one of your thousands of comments above....... NickCT (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, atleast I am making my point instead of just commenting for the sake of it like you just did.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point, and you've made your point, and you've made your point. I think you may need to take a deep breath and remember that Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_that_important. NickCT (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dito.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's "ditto", and I'm not the one with over 50 posts to this page. NickCT (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if I should laugh or just ignore you. You are very hostile. And you seem unaware of this. Anyway, this is my last comment to you. No point in communicating with someone unwilling to.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arguments like "first woman since 1992 to be sentenced in her county" and "second woman to be on Floridas death row" are simply not relevant - unique is not the same as notable. Nor are all the "obviously notable" comments, because being sensational, being in all the papers is not enough for an encyclopedia article. The fifth bullet point of the WP:GNG guideline expressly defers to the policy WP:NOT, which includes WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." The question to ask is not "has this got a lot of coverage now?" but "Has it any long-term significance?" and the answer is, no. JohnCD (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not WP:ONEEVENT and not WP:109PAPERS(Many stories are reported in the news just once on a single day, or over a period of a few days, and then are forgotten.) since there has been continuous coverage since 2009 (see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). And this continued coverage is due to the fact that she is a woman on death row. walk victor falk talk 13:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Victor, ONEEVENT doesnt apply here. Totally wrong reason for putting this Afd up, not that there are really any good reason for it from the start anyway;) There is a high number of Weak Keeps here that could just as well gone for Weak Keep, just pointing out the obvious.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 1E and PERP. The fact that she is one of only two female death row inmates in Florida may (or may not) imply something noteworthy about the Florida criminal justice system, but does nothing to make her life notable. If only two California Black Walnuts were destroyed in the Northridge earthquake, that would not make those two trees notable. Bongomatic 17:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strawman: it's not her life that is under discussion of being notable, but her being a woman and on death row.
  • I find the comparison of a person on death row with walnuts rather tasteless. This is a matter of life and death. Wouldn't the Northridge quake still be wikinotable if only two people had been killed? walk victor falk talk 18:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldnt have said it better myself Victor.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it couldn't have been said any worse, either. "Life or death" ? The melodrama being injected into this discussion by the proponents is beginning to get out of hand. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the Keep sayers that gets out of hand in this discussion. We are pointing to our opinions on this article the "deletionists" only try to bascially say you are wrong we are right. Without actually stating there believes beyond the usual referring to guidelines which can be twisted around for any purpose. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. Editors are using long-established editing guidelines and policies as a basis for why they feel an article should be deleted, while pointing out that those who wish to keep are using personal opinion as a basis for their arguments? Fascinating. Tarc (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – BabbaQ, before you decide to answer Tarc, here, on this AfD page, I would ask that you both and anyone else so inclined to get involved please do so on the user's talk page. In other words, let's keep this page focused on the discussion at hand – the notability of the article's subject. ttonyb (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Victor Falk: It is not a straw man. If her bio isn't notable, but her being a woman on death row is, then what is called for is commentary on the number of women convicted of capital crimes / given the death sentence in Capital punishment in Florida or some other article about the Florida criminal justice system. In such a place, many facts that the "keep" voters (correctly) believe are important and noteworthy—but are obviously beyond the scope of a biography—would be appropriate. Bongomatic 22:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think any of those suggested article names would be notable either. The pertinent information in this article would be better discussed in the larger context of capital punishment in the state of Florida. Indeed an article entitled Capital punishment in Florida already exists, and the Emilia Carr case can and should be discussed there. There is no need for a WP:Content fork on Carr.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More like delete and redirect. The topic is way too over detailed here. Two or three sentences would be all that is required at that article.4meter4 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is usual to keep the history for the record and saving the references (wp:preserve), unless there are particular concerns like wp:blp, wp:copyvio, etc, which it doesn't seem be a concern for this particular article. walk victor falk talk 00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. I would prefer to have it deleted to avoid easy recreation of the article or overly detailed content being transfered elsewhere.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be renamed and focus more on the more notable parts of this persons life then why would it be better to delete it anyway?. Seems like you acknowledge that it is in fact parts of her life and crime that are notable but you simply want it deleted anyway? I might be wrong but that is what it looks like. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Falk... Your argument above seems to be about why Carr is unique. We all agree that Carr is unique. But for the 100th time, UNIQUE is not necessarily NOTABLE. Ok? Do we get it now? How bout as a mathmatical equation - UNIQUE ≠ NOTABLE. NickCT (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we are to talk in mathmatical terms then Unique does certainly not equal non-notable. Unique per fact does often equal notable as they are UNIQUE. What you and most deletionists seems to forget here is that per fact females on death row are RARE about 60 in the whole nation while for example only in Florida about 200+ men are on death row right now. It is rare and should be treated as sutch when it comes to notability in comparison to a male inmate.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Writing equations in all caps is a novel way to conduct mathematical proofs to me. Most intriguing, this could be a paradigm shift in boolean algebra; the Nick CT theorem would definitely be WP:Notable! Congratulations.) Yes, unique is not necessarily wiki-notable. Death row inmates that have for example type O negative, or some rare genetic disorder are not notable. It is if it is a factor or pertinent in relation with capital punishment that it can be notable. For instance, a person that would get the death penalty for shoplifting because of "three-strike-you're-out" laws. Or for being a woman, since violence, and therefore punishment, is much rarer; there is plenty of research on the subject: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] walk victor falk talk 00:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of interesting points, some of which can be covered in an encyclopedia, and some of which seem more likely to be OR/SYNTH. Either way, there is no argument here why the biographical details of the subject of the article under consideration are of encyclopedic note. "Merge and redirect" suggests, incorrectly, that the content of this article should be moved somewhere else, when in fact the overlap with this article given appropriate coverage at Capital punishment in Florida would be minimal. Bongomatic 02:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bongo, you asked me on my talk p. for an additional comment, so: Articles about a person do not and should not focus around biographical details--that's tabloid writing, regardless of the nature of the person's notability Encyclopedic writing should focus on what the person is notable for--in this case, the crime and the ensuing legal and moral issues. If we wanted to retitle the article as State vs. Carr or whatever the formal name of the case is, I'd have no objections. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That title is better than what we have currently, but even so, the legal facts of the case show nothing unusual in terms of Flordia state law. It's pretty much a routine murder trial and conviction. The only thing unusual about the case is the gender of the defendant, which really doesn't make it notable enough for a wikipedia article.4meter4 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"X vs Carr" is good. walk victor falk talk 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the gender is very much so a factor for keeping this article. As I stated above only about 60 women in the whole US are in death row, when comparing that to Floridas male death row alone only there are over 200 men incarcerated. It is rare and in fact notable in itself. And I believe that is the main subject of contention here. And it is a guessing game and that is why it should be kept for now and changed like Victor Flak suggests.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
News flash (I got this from the article) . . . she's not pregnant, nor was she put to death while pregnant. Enough of the fallacious arguments, please. Bongomatic 05:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was pregnant when arrested, but not when charged with a death-penalty eligible crime.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Covenant discusses when the "sentence of death . . . shall not be carried out", and makes no mention of arrest charging, or sentencing. Moreover, even if it did, or if her case were somehow covered by the Covenant, the relevancy to her notability would only be established by coverage, not by one editors conclusion that it imbues notability on her. Generally, notability does not arise by OR or SYNTH. Bongomatic 05:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of her pregnancy: almost every single source: [13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18],The last time a Marion County Judge gave a woman the death penalty was back in 1992. Aileen Wournos was executed ten years later.(...)Tuesday, Judge Willard Pope sentenced 26 year-old Emilia Carr to death. "A mother's worst nightmare," Maria Yera told TV20. "I didn't think she was going to get the death penalty.", The gruesome crime is made more unusual by the fact that Carr was eight months' pregnant at the time. walk victor falk talk 06:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if your syllogistic errors are intentional or just consequences of your trying to justify your position, but this thread is not about the pregnancy generally, but specifically about whether she's notable because of the Covenant, which is neither relevant or covered. If you're simply changing your tune to say that the pregnancy, having been covered extensively, makes the individual notable, I think you are back in the territory of the (disputed relevance of) PERP and 1E. Bongomatic 06:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take it as you please. I maintain that she is notable in North-Central Florida. walk victor falk talk 06:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Falk is making a good point about the pregnancy. Yet another proof pointing towards notability. Also a name change of the article and some changes of the text itself can also be made. What it all comes down to is that deleting this article will not be benefiting for the Wikipedia, both Keep side and Delete side comes with good arguments which makes it virtually impossible for this Afd to end in anything else but a No Consensus decision and a possible change of the article name and direction of the text on Emilia Carr.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@falk - re "Based on that fact alone she has a claim to notability." (stunned silence) - What!?!? Are you serious?!? If I found out that according to the laws of Turkmenistan people named Carr shouldn't be executed, would that make her more notable? Are you making this stuff up as you? Review WP:NOTABLE. Let's have policy based arguments. NickCT (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean NickCT I have respect for you, but arent you the one making things up now? Writing about Turkmenistan? What? Are you serious? What does Turmenistan has to do with Emilia Carr in Florida?. But to answer your question, this isnt about Turkmenistan it is about the law in Florida/US and there according to Falk there is this law. I believe him too,. I find this to be a strawman argument. Cheers..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read Falk's original comment. He said he found something in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that makes Carr more notable. How is that different from me finding something in laws of Turkmenistan that might make her more notable? I'm guessing you're finding this to be a strawman argument b/c you have no answer for it, and you like throwing the term "strawman" around.
What Falk is arguing is both illogical and WP:OR. Let's stick to the guidance outlined in WP:NOTABLE please. NickCT (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The new stories surrounding her unique circumstance, the death sentence, and the underlying murder, all add up to clearly meet out notability standards. I don't have a problem with a reformat/merge to an article about the incident as we are wont to do for circumstances similar to this one.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a reformat of the article as Victor Falk and Brewcrewer suggests is something that can be done easily. If needed. Why delete information that can simply be reformated.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link to "new stories" please. NickCT (talk) 19:47, 11 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emilia_Carr&oldid=1146470172"