Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose (3rd 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 No consensus. CitiCat ^♫ 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is a violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The subject is entirely non-notable and the related "case" is non-notable. No changes were made as a result of this death, the sentences administered to the perpetrators did not attract any controversy, no changes were made to Police procedure. The only references to this death are from Canberra, while the Capital, is still a very small city in Australia. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as the nominator I contend this non notable article violates wikipedia's policy against memorial pages. Previous discussions have focussed on the argument that the "case" is notable. Now that a significant amount of time has passed we see in hindsight that this "case" is not notable at all. No policy changed as a result of this death. No procedures changed as a result of this death. No controversy occurred with the sentence of the offenders. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article has 45 references all from reliable sources. The coronial inquest has not yet reported so it is premature to say that there have been no changes to procedures. I would anticipate that there will be considerable changes when the Coroner reports. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - A person whose death attracts widespread media attention - even primarily local media attention - is often considered notable: see, e.g., Jennifer Strange or Joe Cinque. I think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is meant as a caution to friends and family members who want to use Wikipedia immortalize a non-notable decedent; that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. --Hyperbole 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I don't think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is directed at articles such as these that clearly pass WP:V. It's meant to prevent "RIP Johnny, he wrapped his truck around a pole"-type articles. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any such case can have a lot of sources. Notability does not appear to be established. Doczilla 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Appears to be notable in Canberra (the 8th biggest city in the nation). The article is well written and sourced. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. It's tragic, but local notability doesn't mean it applies elsewhere. Doczilla 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "locality" is Canberra, the capital city of Austrlia. An event or person does not have to be notable everywhere in the world. Recurring dreams 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Purely a memorial article. The death was tragic, but just one more traffic accident. No lasting effects on society. Edison 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable, memorial, per above. --Astroview120mm 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - the article is fully referenced and was a notable event for Canberra. It does not have to apply elsewhere - please remember that Wikipedia is not paper and there's room for fully-referenced well-written articles like this one. And this debate has been had numerous times, so it's bad faith by the nominator to try it again when this debate has been had time and time again. JRG 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it's certainly not bad faith to revisit an AfD after more than a year, when a once-current event can be viewed through the lens of hindsight. You might want to re-read WP:AGF. --Hyperbole 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NOT#MEMORIAL reads: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." I don't see how that applies to this article. Do we contend that all of the media coverage was for the benefit of friends and relatives? Or that they are the authors of the article? Maxamegalon2000 06:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. No one is suggesting that the local newspapers were written by friends or relatives. You have not put forth any arguments how this person is notable. Being run over is not a criteria for notability. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep if there is such a thing. An extremely well referenced and well written article which clearly demonstrates notability. Even if the she did not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, the topic of her death is sufficient to warrant an article in its own right. Assize 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough references and local notability to justify this page. Maybe some minor trimming to the victim's bio at the beginning of the article that does read a little like a memorial though.Alberon 10:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep And I think the references need to be tidied up. A lot are duplicated. Mr pand 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This incident, as the article makes clear, caused widespread rethinking of police car chase procedures around the entire country, and was the subject of massive media attention. How many times do we have to go through these bogus deletion attempts? Rebecca 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - yes I am a Canberran but as per Rebecccca the case was very notable, subject to extensive and ongoing reporting by the media. I am concerned at the number of times this has come back to AfD. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject is notable, this is not a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, article is well written and referenced. I believe those crying "nn delete" for articles like this are ungrateful for the effort people put into them - WP:IDONTCARE is not a reason to delete them. Reswobslc 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I would prefer this article to be kept, I don't think it is fair to say that those who think the subject is not notable are ungrateful for the work of other editors. Expressing an opinion on notability casts no reflection on either the subject of the article or its editors. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Maybe if there was an article on Police persuit in Australia then we could see the impact of the Clea Rose accident on that topic. So far every reference comes back to the Canberra Times, or the local ABC News coverage with one exception being the AAP coverage of the runner who was "inspired by the accident". This seems to have been of local interest only. Would change to KEEP if someone can demonstrate that this incident adjusted procedures for police persuit anywhere other than the ACT.Garrie 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still getting press now, even more than two years after the accident happened. It comes up - both here and interstate - every time the issue of police chases arises in the media. Furthermore, it provoked rethinking of police procedures around the country, though I'm not sure of the extent of any concrete changes, as I haven't actually read up on developments since the start of the coronial inquiry more than a year ago. I'm sick of the bloody-minded attitude of certain folks here - what on earth is the harm on having an article on a really controversial incident that provoked more press attention than, say, most members of parliament would have in their entire careers? Rebecca 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The events surrounding Clea Rose's death have sparked extensive debate about police producdues, and this is well documented in the article. As such, this is an article on a notable topic and not a memorial page. As for it being "of local interest only", Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so if a topic is notable and covers an issue of interest to a city of over 300,000 people there's no reason not to include it. The Canberra Times and ABC news are the two main media sources in Canberra, so there's nothing at all wrong with using them heavily in Canberra-related articles - indeed, not using them would be a major shortcoming. --Nick Dowling 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Clea Rose case and Redirect Clea Rose to that article, rather than vice-versa as is the situation now. It is the event that's notable, not the person. From WP:BIO#Specific examples of sources:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

I think that applies here. Phil Bridger 11:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  The extensive media coverage of Clea Rose in multiple reliable sources cited in Clea_Rose#References_and_notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person persuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose

  Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

  Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 21:46, 11 November 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.