Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tjandamurra O'Shane (2nd nomination)

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 keep. In the time after the last "delete" opinion was submitted, the article has been substantially expanded. The subsequent discussion has unanimously come to the agreement that the amount of media coverage dedicated to this subject, and the length of the period of time over which that coverage occurred, distinguishes the subject from a typical WP:BLP1E case. The decision to keep this article does not rule out its conversion into an article about the event rather than the person, if editorial consensus exists to support such a renaming and/or rewriting.

With respect to the contribution of Jimbo Wales, who is in the minority in this case, I assume that he meant to express his opinion on the subject in an editorial capacity, rather than in his capacity of founder (in which capacity he could have deleted the article outright or otherwise enforced his appraisal of the situation). I refrain, therefore, from assigning any particular weight to his opinion in the closure of this discussion.  Sandstein  18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tjandamurra O'Shane[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tjandamurra O'Shane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article appears to violate WP:BLP1E. It is about a private person who is known (and not that widely) only as the victim of a single incident. A Google search on "Tjandamurra O'Shane" gets only 354 hits, and many of those are on WP clones. Donald Albury 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This "private person" gave his most recent media interview just days ago [1]. As I said during the last AfD, "notable and received lots of media coverage at the time. Requires expansion, not deletion." -- Longhair\talk 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." - so the fact that he was interviewed does not in any way imply that we should have an article about him. He's still notable only for one event.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But also in BLP1E it refers to someone who "essentially remains a low-profile individual". Recent interviews with major news outlets hardly support that. the wub "?!" 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Jimmy and Donald rightly identify this is a WP:BLP1E case; we should not be hanging millstones round people's necks in this way. I'd be open to persuasion abut a redirect to an article on racism and aboriginals (apologies if that's not PC, no offence intended), if one exists, that is certainly a valid topic, but this is just tabloid aggregation and we really should be better than that. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Possible Merge to an appropriate article on Aborigines. I concur that this is classic WP:BLP1E case - there is no indication of any coverage of this individual other than for this one event. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A quick search using some keywords doesn't really show anything this could be merged into, and per WP:ONEEVENT shouldn't be on the encyclopedia. The 'expected result' of the last AfD per the event newswise obviously hasn't happened.--MattWT 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With great respect to the earlier comments, this was not an ordinary injury victim. People are involved in accidents and injuries all the time, which make the news but are not worthy of remembering. I understand that reasoning. However, most Australian people know of Tjandamurra O'Shane. I'm sure there's racial incidents all the time in every country, but this one struck the Australian populace because it became a poignant example of a racial attack against innocence. The incident touched the nation, and the nation followed Tjandamurra's progress for years. I didn't have anything to do with the article, and just came across it on the AfD list, but still, more than 12 years after the event I remember Tjandamurra O'Shane. It's an event that meant something to Australia, even if it means nothing to the rest of the world. If anything, the article is too short and should be expanded. If you described a Los Angeles guy called Rodney who was a taxi driver and also the victim of a racial attack, on that evidence alone you'd say delete it. But when it means something to a nation, you keep it.--Lester 22:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Then where are the citations to reliable sources explaining and discussing the significance of this incident? While Google searches are poor tools for assessing notability and significance, the paucity of non-Wikipedia derived Google hits about the subject of the article indicates to me that the incident may have made a big splash in the news at the time, but has no enduring encyclopedic merit that justifies the existence of an article about the victim in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • re: Comment - Most of the major Australian media organisations only began putting their content online after 2001. It's actually difficult to search for anything before then. The Courier Mail, the main newspaper for Brisbane and Queensland, keeps a list of the top events to occur in North Queensland during history, and the 1996 event surrounding Tjandamurra O'Shane is listed prominently. (Link: Courier Mail).--Lester 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ARTICLE IMPROVED - Just noting the point where I have made some improvements to the article, with new references.--Lester 01:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I claim some authorship of this article. Tjandamurra's 18th birthday was considered national news - [2]. The Education Department compiled a report into risk and security in schools a month after the incident - [3]. The Law Institute of Victoria had a comment about the compensation available to him - [4]. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than just a BLP1E. Most major media outlets in Australia covered his 18th birthday, 12 years after the initial event. This pretty much proves the national significance of the initial event. This isn't some long forgotten crime, this is a crime that horrified a nation and is therefore of encyclopedic value. RMHED (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But no doubt because of the original event. Follow up stories, birthday wishes, and such do not assert notability.. --MattWT 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Aside from the horrific attack, Tjandamurra has a famous aunt and was also given the gift of a world title belt by a world champion boxer [5]. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Having a famous aunt does not assert notability in the smallest way, and being given the belt is because of the burning. This still applies under WP:ONEEVENT in my view with a stretch, but definitely does not pass notability. --MattWT 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a WP:ONEEVENT as per Richard Cavell, RMHED and WWGB hsve said. Bidgee (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The random attack on a 6-year old Aboriginal boy is notable through being profoundly significant in Australia, and in the field of indigenous/European relations. The attack and Tjandamurra are indistinguishable. Wikipedia could not carry an article about the attack without it being an article about Tjandamurra. I have added a little extra information with appropriate citation. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There should not be an individual article on the attack at all, Wikinews is for that. I would support a merge with any article you can find however that deals with Indigenous and European relations.. --MattWT 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This remark makes no sense, Wikinews is for recent news, not historical events.--Grahame (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I mentioned in the previous AfD, O'Shane was one of Who Weekly magazine's most beautiful people of 1996. --Canley (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Per WP:ONEEVENT 'If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted'. Are there any sources that refer to him not because of what happened to him in the fire, or directly related to it? Non trivial coverage would support the articles existance in the long run, not just to save an article that may be deleted in the future. --MattWT 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To MattWT, I realise you've only been at Wikipedia for a few days, but it would help if you posted comments in the order that you make them, and not keep changing your comments later. Thanks,--Lester 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The amount of attention recieved at the time and continuing to this day makes this a clearly notable event. Where else should it be placed? Perhaps we should go with one of our typically ridiculous titles like 1996 Indigenous Australian child combustion incident? It's all very well saying things like "we should not be hanging millstones round people's necks in this way" - but it's not us who did that. We can't magic away the overwhelming media coverage. the wub "?!" 09:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with due respect to those who are saying "delete because of BLP1E", I'm going to have to disagree. The attack on O'Shane generated truly staggering coverage at the time, and the fact that he's still getting coverage in notable sources only underlines his notability. Saying that the article should be deleted because it all stems from one event is like saying that Phan Thị Kim Phúc should be deleted because all of her notability came from a single event. While it may technically meet the BLP1E definitions, I really don't think that cases like this one were what the community had in mind with that particular policy. As long as the material in the article is well sourced and uncontroversial (which, as far as I can see, it is), I don't see any problem with the retention of this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Per Lester, Donald Albury, Richard Cavell, RMHED, Dolphin51, the wub, etc. We do have articles on these folks (see Jessica McClure, for instance) and if Janda stops doing interviews and registers concern of privacy we can re-evaluate what needs to be here. One event concerns are valid as most minors don't have a lot of notable things going on. He's apparently a performing indigenous dancer so it could help to add sections to the article to help differentiate and organize the material. The sources are under utilized, IMHO, especially the recent interviews with him. Banjeboi 09:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How did I get on that list? I nominated this article, and still support its deletion. -- Donald Albury 11:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. My bad, zigged when I meant to zag. Banjeboi 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I welcome Jimmy's suggestion that the policy be clarified, but not so that "things like this" can be speedy deleted. WP:BIO1E mentions those involved with "a particular relatively unimportant crime" – a pretty wishy-washy statement, and one that I don't think applies here. I don't agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies to an individual known to millions of Australians over twelve years after the event. --Canley (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Yes, he is notable primarily for one event but it was an event that made international attention and the fact that it is still being followed up 14 years later demonstrates the high degree of notability associated with the matter. Moreover, the fact that now as an adult he is giving interviews demonstrates that he doesn't have a large amount of concern or extreme desire for privacy so such arguments do not hold water in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:BLP1E is regularly abused and misinterpreted to mean "delete any article for any person whose notability can be traced backed to a single event, regardless of anything else that has occurred in their life", and this selective misuse of policy is only further perpetuated here. While initial notability stemmed from a single incident, O'Shane's continuing coverage in the media, backed by independent reliable and verifiable sources, clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Even for those who believe BLP1E is a valid justification to not have an article for O'Shane, the refusal to follow BLP1E's guidance and renaming the article -- "In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." -- is only further evidence that the policy is being abused. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (consider renaming if feasible.) The racially motivated crime here caused a huge outcry, and the attention caused by this makes the event encyclopedic. For other examples, consider the Rodney King case, and the 2005 murder of an African 12-year old at Holmlia which is covered in the general purpose encyclopedia Store norske leksikon. If BLP1E is the concern (I am fairly ambivalent to this, on one hand I can understand the problem of victim->notable, on the other hand this person has been covered for a long time since the event, and given a spot in an Olympic torch relay as well), renaming the article to cover the event is a better option than outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It was never established that this was a racially-motivated attack. Streeton never revealed his motive, only saying that he had been planning to burn someone since Year 2 because he had been bullied at school. [6] WWGB (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The crime perpetrated against Tjandamurra caused a very large public reaction in Australia and was very prominent front page news at the time. Since then there have been regular reports on Tjandamurra's progress in the media. Whether this crime was racially motivated or not it is worthy of keeping simply for its original and continuing significance in Australia and in Queensland in particular. Jenafalt (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. Even if it did apply, BLP1E is not grounds for deletion. It specifically states that we should "cover the event, not the person" if the subject meets other criteria for inclusion. Continuing coverge over more than a decade and events such as the benefit concert clearly demonstrate notability. No policy-based reasons for deletion have been presented or supported. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the event per WP:BLP1E. Not sure why so many people (including those who should know better) think BLP1E supports deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a number of editors have suggested renaming, which I can see might be a compromise, but so far there have been no suggestions as to a better title than the current one (except my somewhat fatuous suggestion). Any ideas? the wub "?!" 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree if there were some great new name a move might seem reasonable but the objections all stemmed from concerns of BLP and much if not most of teh current information would likely be kept. Banjeboi 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the BLP1E and BIO1E concerns are meritless. 11 years later, last week, this guy has major media exposure, with photos, looking back on the event at his 18th birthday. Per WP:NOT#NEWS "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." 11 year later followups would not exist without the event, but these articles extend beyond merely recounting the event--they cover his 18th birthday, current state, enduring effects of the injuries, and basically revisit him as a person. All evidence is that this event was suitably notable in Australia that it makes news 11 years later. Fundamentally, I don't care whether it's called an event and includes some info on the gentleman's bio, or his bio and includes info on his event. We have WP:RS for all of it and no compelling reason to not cover it. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Either as an article on the event or on the individual. The extensive coverage over such a period of time persuades me that we should have an article on this and goes beyond a WP:BLP1E for me. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it similar to Crispus Attucks: "Little is known for certain about Attucks other than that he was killed in the Boston Massacre." Or Matthew Shepard. The fact that he was attacked by a bigot is not really notable, but the response that he got is notable and makes him notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (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/Tjandamurra_O%27Shane_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138875341"