Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Page moved to Clea Rose case; renominated for deletion; discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clea_Rose_case. MCB 00:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clea Rose

Very sad story; I'm sure she was a lovely girl, and I know that her family and friends must be very deeply grieving. However, WP:ISNOT a memorial, unless it can be established that she did something notable or that the circumstances of her death were notable. DS

• Delete per nom. - sadly, being killed in a car accident isn't notable. The Australian police being implicated in the car crash is slightly more unusual, but it doesn't sound like there was any serious negligence on the police's part. So, a tragic occurence, but not a notable one. Last Malthusian 14:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it may have had media attention, but I see no lasting effects such as a new law arising from the incident --Outlander 16:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is some implications in that the tapes from the security cameras in Civic (the CBD of Canberra) are missing and that there is some indication that there was a police chase underway when she was hit. The underaged driver of the vehicle is facing manslaughter charges as the result of her death. There will be a coronial inquest into her death. This case has been newsworthy in the ACT and raised in the Legislative Assembly. I hope to clean this up tonight. Capitalistroadster 17:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CR, thanks for taking care of this. Sdedeo 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 21:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalist. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I rewrote the first paragraph of the story to emphasize the incident, rather than Rose, as the subject, removed later bio info, and moved the article to Clea Rose case. This avoids the nn-bio issue and hopefully leaves a useful stub on the accident/controversy. --MCB 07:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The case was quite high-profile here in Canberra, being in the news for a couple of weeks. As tragic as it is, though, I don't expect it'll be of much interest to anyone in a month or two, but neither am I fussed enough to vote delete. If it is kept, though, please move it back to Clea Rose - Clea Rose case is ugly, unconventional, and less useful. Ambi 07:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of "_____ case" is that the case (accident, aftermath, controversy) is notable, while the person involved was not. I would vote delete on a bio of the person, but the article might qualify as encyclopedic. I don't think it's unconventional at all. I don't have the inclination to do dig up a bunch of examples, but I've seen them in the form of "_____ case", "_____ controversy", "_______ matter". And of course the simple name form remains as a redirect. MCB 08:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.