Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camille Cleverley
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 delete. GRBerry 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Camille Cleverley
A young lady reported as missing then found dead. Prior to the incident she was just a typical young lady with no notability whatsoever. The article reads like a news report (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper). Creator asserts that as her disappearance was reported widely in the press that this infers notability on her personally. CSD was denied on the grounds that notability is asserted but commented that notability may not actually be demonstrated. The case itself is not unusual, the associated press coverage was primarily used as a means to locate her. Reason for nomination: Non-notability -- WebHamster 10:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep James Kim is the closest similar example I can think of off hand, although I believe his story was more widely publicized. --Mud4t 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Fails WP:N. Pedro | Chat 13:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and WP:POINT allegation. This case received a hugely disproportionate amount of attention, just like Elizabeth Smart, that goes far above and beyond the scope of just another "missing and found dead". For better or for worse, people attribute this to her being a white upper-middle-class blonde female that's not "supposed" to go missing. Yes, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but when the New York Times, the Associated Press,CNN, MSNBC, CBS, and even the television show America's Most Wanted pick it up, you can't sit with a straight face and say it's another "non-notable memorial". The notion that the "associated press coverage was primary used to locate her" was fallacious since they continued to report on her after she was located. I allege nominator is making a WP:POINT - nominator and I were involved in an unrelated recent disagreement shortly before I created this article (another unsuccessful AfD where I alleged non-notability elsewhere) - this is potentially a bad faith "payback" nomination. He has already attempted to speedy this article, which was quickly overturned. Reswobslc 16:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Repudiation: The only point I am attempting to make is that the article is not suitable for WP for the reasons I gave. I really don't care about any disagreements we may or may not have had. This is Wikipedia not a pub. There are always debates and there are always conflicting views. Some you win some you lose, I don't take either seriously, I'm certainly not petty enough to do something like I've been accused of. Perhaps a perusal of both our contribution records and talk pages would elicit some perspective to any interested parties. Meanwhile I suggest that you stop making these unsubstantiated and histrionic accusations before you make a total fool of yourself. You've had your say, now let others have theirs. The article is there in all its glory let it speak for itself. I know what it says to me, hence the CSD then the AFD. ---- WebHamster 16:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Transient press coverage does not confer notability. Clarityfiend 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The article can be judged on its merits irrespective of any prior conflicts between the nominator and other editors. This is a tragic incident wherein a non-notable young person fell to her death in a possible accident. Hundreds of thousands of people annually die just as tragically in accidents and do not merit encyclopedia articles. Fox News or "America's Most Wanted" selects stories to boost ratings, and encyclopedia editors have different criteria for what is notable or encyclopedic, as stated in the essay WP:NOTNEWS as well as the policy WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia is neither a memorial site to remember the departed nor a news archive to forever report every accidental death. The fact that the media chose to print several stories about a missing young blond white woman does not mean that WP:N is satisfied. Edison 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So we now discount nationwide news published by independent sources by making conclusion about the news media's motivation in publishing it? "Well, it's just for the ratings, so it's not really notable"? That is a little bit of an oxymoron. If a subject gets selected by the news "for the ratings", that is prima facie evidence of notability. By the way, I don't know Camille nor have I ever met her, nor did I contribute to her search effort, which should moot most "memorial" allegations. I only know of Camille from the news. Reswobslc 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, tragic, with a flurry of publicity, but not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 18:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per the relevant notability guideline: The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Certainly this is the case here? faithless (speak) 19:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete In this case the notability is simply as having been missing--and then found dead from an accident. Presumably the news coverage as being missing was due to a morbid public presumption that she would have been kidnapped at the least, if not murdered. I know I'm being cynical, but news coverage does work that way. DGG (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Both comments you make are more likely true than not. To add to it, I suppose many people here recognize that being a blonde white female means the attention she gets is far more than the attention she deserves. It's also true that she's getting talked about much less now that she's found. That's the nature of all news and events. But that does not make someone not notable. Plane crashes are no different - their perceived notability is exaggerated simply because planes fly and people fear that - and they disappear just as quickly from the news. Yet we have extensive articles not just for plane crashes, but for near misses that harmed nobody! (example, example, example). I think we should stick with the criteria in WP:N for judging notability. WP:N says notability means the person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If notability were judged on how notable some feel she deserves to be, then I'd agree, this article should go (and I'd AfD Paris Hilton in the same swoop). Reswobslc 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - One of the points of attempting consensus is that rationalisation is achieved rather than hard and fast sticking rigidly to the word of the guidelines. Yes there was major press coverage, but this has to be taken in context both to the way the media works and to the case in question. It's one thing having a valid biographical press article on a politician and quite another when it's a flash-in-the-pan media frenzy when they perceive that they can either increase ratings, sell copy or help find someone. If this was the case then it could be argued that every kid on a milk carton should have an article. The fact of the matter is she went missing, then showed up dead. That is it. No-one in their right mind can say that person is notable. Famous, yes, but not notable. There's a difference. ---- WebHamster 10:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting concept - "famous but not notable". That's quite a stretch. Can we AfD Paris Hilton yet then? (I think not.) There is no practical limit to the number of topics that Wikipedia can cover. Wikipedia is not paper. As long as the guidelines for notability are satisfied, why can't most every kid on a milk carton have an article, especially if it was nationwide? There aren't that many total. The "milk carton" complaint would only strike me as a problem if people were using Wikipedia to find their lost pets or runaway teens. Having an article is certainly more meaningful than a search result essentially saying "Nope, we have no idea who that is, but see the extensive discussion on why we're keeping our mouth shut", or "Nope, we don't know who this is, and we don't want you to tell us either (salted)". Reswobslc 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The simple answer to that concept is that WP is an encyclopaedia not a missing persons bureau, neither is it a newspaper nor a memorial site. It's not a who's who nor is it a source of knowledge on everything. It's also not the Ministry for Silly Ideas. ---- WebHamster 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Despite no mention in WP:NOT, I agree it's not a missing persons bureau, which is why the article is not asking "Have You Seen Camille Cleverley". Agreed it's not a newspaper, which is why the article title is not "Missing BYU Student Found Dead". I agree it is not a memorial site, which is why the article talks about her disappearance and death, not her life and by whom she will be missed. It is a who's who for people that satisfy WP:N, and it is a source of all knowledge that is consistent with Wikipedia's five pillars. It may not be a place for "silly ideas"... but it is a place for "notable silly ideas" (example). Reswobslc 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- So is the article meant to about her, a non-notable person, about the disappearance (nothing to distinguish it from 100s of other disappearances) or about the news frenzy associated with her disappearance? It's starting to look like an inappropriate name for an article if it's not about her per se. ---- WebHamster 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you do have a point here, such that "Camille Cleverley disappearance" (redirected to by Camille Cleverley) may be a more appropriate title, because her only potential claim to notability is her disappearance. Look at Destiny Norton - same issue (where naming the people and not the disappearance begs the question "do we name the article after the perp or the victim?"). It is fair to say that the news reported on Camille's disappearance because her disappearance was notable, not because Camille was. May I solicit your opinion regarding doing such a move? (Also, as a counter-example food for thought, consider Kiplyn Davis, also a missing person who per the article has not been found, for whom the "milk carton" and "is the article title appropriate" discussions would also apply, but whom I wouldn't be quite as quick to move to Kiplyn Davis disappearance and I'm not quite yet sure why.) Reswobslc 16:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- So is the article meant to about her, a non-notable person, about the disappearance (nothing to distinguish it from 100s of other disappearances) or about the news frenzy associated with her disappearance? It's starting to look like an inappropriate name for an article if it's not about her per se. ---- WebHamster 15:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Despite no mention in WP:NOT, I agree it's not a missing persons bureau, which is why the article is not asking "Have You Seen Camille Cleverley". Agreed it's not a newspaper, which is why the article title is not "Missing BYU Student Found Dead". I agree it is not a memorial site, which is why the article talks about her disappearance and death, not her life and by whom she will be missed. It is a who's who for people that satisfy WP:N, and it is a source of all knowledge that is consistent with Wikipedia's five pillars. It may not be a place for "silly ideas"... but it is a place for "notable silly ideas" (example). Reswobslc 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The simple answer to that concept is that WP is an encyclopaedia not a missing persons bureau, neither is it a newspaper nor a memorial site. It's not a who's who nor is it a source of knowledge on everything. It's also not the Ministry for Silly Ideas. ---- WebHamster 15:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Interesting concept - "famous but not notable". That's quite a stretch. Can we AfD Paris Hilton yet then? (I think not.) There is no practical limit to the number of topics that Wikipedia can cover. Wikipedia is not paper. As long as the guidelines for notability are satisfied, why can't most every kid on a milk carton have an article, especially if it was nationwide? There aren't that many total. The "milk carton" complaint would only strike me as a problem if people were using Wikipedia to find their lost pets or runaway teens. Having an article is certainly more meaningful than a search result essentially saying "Nope, we have no idea who that is, but see the extensive discussion on why we're keeping our mouth shut", or "Nope, we don't know who this is, and we don't want you to tell us either (salted)". Reswobslc 14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - One of the points of attempting consensus is that rationalisation is achieved rather than hard and fast sticking rigidly to the word of the guidelines. Yes there was major press coverage, but this has to be taken in context both to the way the media works and to the case in question. It's one thing having a valid biographical press article on a politician and quite another when it's a flash-in-the-pan media frenzy when they perceive that they can either increase ratings, sell copy or help find someone. If this was the case then it could be argued that every kid on a milk carton should have an article. The fact of the matter is she went missing, then showed up dead. That is it. No-one in their right mind can say that person is notable. Famous, yes, but not notable. There's a difference. ---- WebHamster 10:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Both comments you make are more likely true than not. To add to it, I suppose many people here recognize that being a blonde white female means the attention she gets is far more than the attention she deserves. It's also true that she's getting talked about much less now that she's found. That's the nature of all news and events. But that does not make someone not notable. Plane crashes are no different - their perceived notability is exaggerated simply because planes fly and people fear that - and they disappear just as quickly from the news. Yet we have extensive articles not just for plane crashes, but for near misses that harmed nobody! (example, example, example). I think we should stick with the criteria in WP:N for judging notability. WP:N says notability means the person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If notability were judged on how notable some feel she deserves to be, then I'd agree, this article should go (and I'd AfD Paris Hilton in the same swoop). Reswobslc 01:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom & DGG. Sad, yes, but not notable ultimately. Carlossuarez46 23:19, 24 September 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
