Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayla Rolland

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. -Doc^g 23:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Rolland[edit]

Private person, non-notable, but the victim of a notable tragic event - Issues with unsupported notability, lack of reliable sources, & biographies of living persons. Ssbohio 17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep seems both sourced and notable. Though if the nominator cited any policy which would defend his point about her being a private person, I would likely switch to delete. BH (Talk) 17:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed to delete per policy stated below. BH (Talk) 18:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the policy guidance on articles about living people notable only for one event, which, while specifically about living people, eloquently expresses my concern: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.

Also, see the criteria for the notability of people: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Media coverage was focused on the shooting incident, and the coverage of the victim was incidental to that. The article on the shooter has already been deleted.--Ssbohio 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Wikipedia is not a memorial. Being the victim of a crime does not make a person notable. And, of course, a 6-year old girl must otherwise be considered a "private person", leaving the point aside that she was a crime victim: What notability criteria should she fulfill? It is not the person, it is the crime that may be notable. Maybe it could be mentioned in conjunction with the "Bowling for Columbine" film, or elsewhere. --B. Wolterding 17:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention: Since the mother of the child is named in the article, and she is still living, I was wondering whether this is in line with WP:BLP? --B. Wolterding 17:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mother, the shooter, and the relative from whom the shooter got the gun are all named. Perhaps that would be appropriate in an article about the event, but not here. --Ssbohio 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In What Wikipedia is not says "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. The briefer the appearance of a subject in the news the less likely it is to create an acceptably comprehensive encyclopedic biography. Even when news events themselves merit an encyclopedia article of their own, additional biographies of person(s) involved may not be necessary as they could largely duplicate relevant information. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." In Biographies of living persons is "Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." The shooting victim is notable only for the one event. We are not a memorial site, and the reference websites are self-described as memorials. There were in fact 5 or so independent wire service stories, showing thaty WP:N is satisfied, but as argued inthe essay WP:NOTNEWS we are not a newspaper archive or crime archive. In this instance, the shooter (now a teenager) was a 6 year old and was not held legally liable for the event. The references tell his mother's name and will forever brand him with this, even though his own name is not explicitly stated. The victim's mother's personal issues do not need to be published in a prominent website, any more than info about the shooter's father having been in jail. The harm done outweighs the slight encyclopedic importance of a 6 year old shooting and killing a 6 year old. It did not lead to major effects on society like new laws, nor to books or movies. Just a sad event with a burst of news stories, one of 11 thousand homicides by shooting each year in the U.S., each of which gets multiple press stories. [1] Edison 18:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep we will have matured as a civilized society when each homicide is notable. As we are not nearly there yet, we need to consider what ones are-- ones with an unusually situated victim or perpetrator, or ununsual circumstances, or unusual nationals coverage for other reasons. I doubt this is the very youngest person yet to be involved in such circumstances in the US, but it probably is one of the youngest. It is therefore noteworthy. The age of those involved is a problem however, because the shooter was not actually convicted. How great social importance something must have to overcome that is subject to different interpretations. Mine is that the circumstances is so horrific that it shifts the balance to keep as a permanent indication of the problems of our society. DGG 03:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to write an article about the event, I'd personally have no objection, as long as it doesn't go into excessive detail about the people involved. But, this is a biography of the victim, rather than an article about the incident itself. The victim is only notable for one event, her victimization. Her life tragically ended too early for her to achieve notability in and of herself. --Ssbohio 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The event is certainly notable ([2]). It is often cited in gun-control discussions (e.g. [3]). Stammer 06:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since when is she not notable? She was one of the youngest school shooting victims. 44,000 hits on Google, 1200 stories on Google News, and a feature in a big-name documentary. Yes, this entire article is pretty much about her death, yet I see no stories about her on Wikinews, leaving no document of this story available here. --FlyingPenguins 21:21, 9 June 2007 (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.