Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Davis

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The result was withdrawn. Thanks to Night Gyr, the page no longer attempts to be a biography. Sean William @ 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jessie Davis

Jessie Davis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the subject is absolutely not notable without the fact that she has been missing since June 13, which has nothing but news sources. We have a sister project named Wikinews used to cover things like this. I have speedily deleted this article twice under CSD A7, but decided to bring it here after it was abundantly clear that people disagree with me. If you don't have sources that would allow you to write a full biography on the person, then an article should not exist on them. Sean William @ 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Weak Keep Subject is definitely notable but the body hasn't been confirmed as her's yet so as far as we know she could still be alive even though it's doubtful. MAKAVELI 87 6:25 am 24 June 2007

Keep While the article itself may not contain much information, it has some relevancy to other articles if it's linked and cleaned up properly.
STRONG KEEP are you kidding me? this is a notable article! this is a perfect candidate for a wiki page. just needs some work and cleaning up! laci peterson, and all those other missing women's pages should be deleted as well then. BigCoop 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Read through our Policies and guidelines and you'll find that this is not the "perfect candidate" for an article. Sean William @ 04:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep this is most certainly a notable subject. The page just needs work, but it should not be removed, or in this case even be considered for removal. Like I said all it needs is some work. BigCoop 04:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

While you are welcome to comment at reasonable length, please refrain from adding multiple "keep" or "delete" declarations within the same discussion.
—Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-06-24 09:39Z
KEEP This is relevant to other articles related to missing persons and those that search for them, as well as law enforcement updates related to that city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs)

STRONG KEEP This is quite a notable article, and thus it deserves its own Wikipedia article. However I do agree that it should be more elaborated and properly cleaned up. I predict that more information will be added to the article as the forensic investigations are slowly unveiled by the Canton Police Department.Cal Poly Pomona Engineer 04:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. I think bringing this to AfD was the right move because there was a sufficient claim of notability that meant CSD was inappropriate, but I'd agree with the analysis of Sean William above. There is a place for this information, but it doesn't appear to be this project at this time. I think the relevant guideline is the multiple and independent coverage standard in the biography notability guideline. This is all coming from one place. If Ms. Davis had been a heavily reviewed modern artist or had done something else that could contribute an additional independent bit of sourcing, I could see a better argument for keep. As it is at the moment, I don't see anything like that. Erechtheus 04:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
KEEP It is obvious that this story will grow as more is learned. If this should be deleted then so should Laci Peterson et all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Backohead (talk • contribs) — Backohead (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Pointing at Laci Peterson exposes precisely why notability here is lacking. If this case captures the imagination of the public like the Peterson case did, it may be a subject worthy of inclusion here. Until that happens, you're just looking into a crystal ball. Erechtheus 05:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Hasn't this case already captured the imagination of the public like the Peterson case did? (JosephASpadaro 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
Comment Not even a drop in the bucket. There haven't been one ten-thousandth the articles on her as there were on Laci Peterson. I'm guessing that 99% of Wikipedia editors haven't even heard about her yet. Laci Peterson was internationally known; this woman is barely known outside her very small local area. --Charlene 14:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - You are comparing apples and oranges. Pound for pound, I am sure that this case has captured attention equal to, if not greater than, the Laci Peterson case. You have to remember that the Davis case has only been in the news for a week or so, while the Peterson case was in the news for a good year or two (as the investigation and court proceedings dragged on). Naturally, in absolute terms, a case in the news for 1-2 years will have more articles (in absolute numbers) than a case in the news for 7-8 days. Your comment that "this woman is barely known outside her very small local area" makes no sense. Has not this story been the topic of major and constant news coverage all over the nation (and not just in the Ohio locality) for the past week or so? (JosephASpadaro 16:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment Again, you have highlighted why this article is not appropriate at present. If there is the volume of coverage in a year or two that there is now for Peterson, it would be appropriate to write an article on Jessie Davis. Until that coverage actually exists, an article is not appropriate. Erechtheus 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - If you read my above posted comment, I said that indeed the volume of coverage is (proportionally) similar to (if not greater than) the Peterson case. If you are suggesting that we wait 1 or 2 years to add this article, that is just downright silly. (JosephASpadaro 18:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
  • There is nothing silly about it at all. It's the same principle that suggests we shouldn't have articles on films that are stuck in development hell. We have 3 news articles that obviously have the same sourcing about the same event. To compare that with the coverage of the Peterson case is absurd. There was a moment in time when the Peterson case had this level of coverage, and it wasn't notable at that point. As I said before, this case might catch fire and be the next Peterson case. If that happens, that's the time to write an article about it. That's the way it works. Erechtheus 18:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't see the point in having an article for every missing woman in U.S. history which is exactly what's happening. Michelle Gardner-Quinn also disappeared and was later found dead. She didn't get as many headlines as Davis and yet we have an article for her as well. If anywhere, these belong on a Crime-pedia of some sort. Not every one of these women is notable. Dismas|(talk) 05:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP - The event is notable. (JosephASpadaro 05:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is why we have Wikinews. --- RockMFR 06:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable individual who recieved much attention and media coverage. I do not understand the "not a newspaper" argument. Firstly, the article reads nothing like a newspaper entry. Secondly, how does mass media coverage reduce a person's notability for an article when it should do the opposite? Also, if events in the news were not significant to Wikipedia, there would not be an "In the News" section on the main page of the site. And as more information comes out about this woman's life prior to her disappearance/murder, that information can be added at that time. Just because it may not available at the time does not reduce the notability of the individual and the story though. --musicpvm 06:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. If you don't like articles like this being included, go try to find consensus to change the notability guidelines. She, having received in-depth coverage in multiple media sources, easily and unquestionably satisfies the current requirements. Evouga 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This person has received coverage in a couple reputable news channels but may still need more sources to help make it more notable. --Hdt83 Chat 06:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another example of MWWS. Who, other than family and friends, will remember her after a few months? Not notable before her death, notable for a short while only on account of her disappearance. WWGB 07:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This victim is practically all over the news (local and national)...thus notable. Deserves a place in Wikinews and Wikipedia. Jumping cheese 08:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have to DISagree with the citation of coverage, as the first I'd heard of this sad story was ... coming across this article in AfD. And while not everyone is blessed with watching the news at all hours, I hadn't seen this story splayed luridly across newspapers or breaking into broadcast news. It's a sad story, but Wiki can't be a repository for all of them. This is a subjective assessment of notoreity, I know, but if the main defending point is how it's known to everyone, and someone in the middle of the US with normal media reception hasn't heard of it ... is it that well known? IL-Kuma 08:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
"I've never heard of it" is not a valid reason for deletion; see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Notability is established once a subject has received significant coverage from multiple secondary sources, which she has. Evouga 10:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete transwiki to wikinews if they want it. Only notable for being a murder victim like thousands of others. Wikipedia should not become a memorial for murder victims. Davewild 08:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    Wikinews uses a different license than Wikipedia, so transwiki-ing is not possible. It would be perfectly OK to rewrite the article over there, though. Sean William @ 15:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep. Murder victims are routinely memorialized on WP. And if you are that exercised about the topic being deleted, wait a few months. And I have improved the article. As for a true crime article for your disputative natures, I suggest viewing Garlin case, a rather unvisited but ongoing article (Google has not picked it up).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Telephone (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete Absolutely no reason to keep such a non-notable article. Being murdered does not make you notable and there appears to be no public knowledge beyond a few routine News Articles. I know it is sad and people like to think all sad stories deserve a place here, but we can't allow every death a page. Wikipedia is NOT a Memorial. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable for the oversaturation of coverage and the media criticism that follows the case. It fits the mode of Missing Pretty Girl Syndrome. LILVOKA 12:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying we whould have a wikipedia article for every white woman who goes missing in the United States? --Ozgod 15:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a memorial. There is no long-term notability, and doesn't rise above any of the other missing or murdered persons. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Never fails to amaze me how many people want to keep articles liek this "just because." /Blaxthos 12:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a news source, but this is very notable. While I realize that most murder victims aren't kept here, this is notable, and it doesn't fail WP:MEMORIAL because it is all encyclopedic content that can, will, and is possibly already covered by independent reliable sources. I live in Canton, Ohio, and this is very notable. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While I sit on the fence with this issue, is Wikipedia really here to serve as a encyclopeda for all missing persons in the U.S. and abroad? How many cases go unnoticed every day or covered in the news? In particular, what makes this missing person case unique in that it requires an encyclopedia article? When I look to victims of crime, I look to Kitty Genovese in regards to notability. Her murder became quite well known, as I believe it is called the Genovese Effect (where people watch a crime occur but do nothing). I do not mean this to sound rude or judgemental, but I feel it is too early for this article. People are killed and kidnapped everyday - but do we need an article for all of them? Some just get more coverage in the news than others. Ozgod 14:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are 100,000 missing persons in the US alone. One Hundred Thousand. The total missing persons worldwide is likely close to twenty million. Do we have articles on all of them? --Charlene 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not the same thing as popularity or short-term news coverage. If she's notable in six months or a year, we can revisit it then, but now she's no more than one out of the millions of missing persons and (alleged) murder victims in the world. This would be much more appropriate for Wikinews right now. --Charlene 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. A burst of media coverage does not make one historcaly notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. - Nabla 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. People need to know about Jessie Davis on wikipedia not wikinews. The article does not sound like a newspaper article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.161.114 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Why would this article be nominated for deletion any more than an article on Laci Peterson? This is most certainly a notable subject. --Realdiamonds 16:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - To many of the commentators (above): No, we do not need an article about every single murder victim in the country. No, we do not need an article about every single missing person in the country. No one here is arguing that we do. The "keep" votes support the notability of this victim and this case. While there may be many murder victims and many missing persons in the country, clearly some cases are more notable and others are less notable (if notable at all). The argument is not that Jessie Davis is a murder victim just like the countless other murder victims. The argument is that, rightly or wrongly, her case is notable while many of the others are not. (JosephASpadaro 16:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
Why is this case more notable than any other murder case? EliminatorJR Talk 17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Why this case is more notable is not the issue; the fact that it is more notable is the issue. The "why", I am sure, is a complex sociological question. (JosephASpadaro 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
Well, that's arguing by assertion. To re-word the question, how is this case more notable? EliminatorJR Talk 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
comment We don't know it's highly notable until it has run it's course. Such as the time when Amber Hagerman case evolved to what is now considered "Amber Alert" system instituted around the country and also helped launch the Texas EquuSearch organization. But all this was a result of the kidnapping that occurred several months after the fact. It's impossible to know what future organization will evolve from this incident.--Hourick 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment So write the article if or when notability is established. We don't write articles looking into a crystal ball. Erechtheus 19:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Remember all of the article about VA Tech shooting victims? Being killed and then written about in the news doesn't really make someone notable. Reywas92Talk 17:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete though suitable for Wikinews. Was she notable before her murder? No. EliminatorJR Talk 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability prior to death is not in issue. I don't think that anyone here is claiming that she was notable prior to her murder. (JosephASpadaro 18:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
In that case she's undoubtedly NN, because her death doesn't make her notable. Notability has to be permanent - as I said, short term news coverage is what we have Wikinews for. Yes, this doesn't apply to all murder victims, as there may be a wider real-world notability involved in the circumstances of their death, but that doesn't apply here. EliminatorJR Talk 20:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - here's another way of looking at it: Will "Jessie Davis" be an answer to a school or game-show test question two years from now? No. Why? She wasn't notable before she was killed, and her death itself had no lasting impact on our society. Sad but true. Contrast this with, say "Name the woman who refused to give up her bus seat..." Notability isn't measured by lines in the press but by whether or not the subject made a lasting impact on the world around her. Our notability guidelines need updating. Rklawton 18:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not the place to unilaterally ignore policy. Go get consensus to change WP:notability and then renominate the article.Evouga 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, I hardly think that the feasibility of "game show" type questions serves as a litmus test for notability. (JosephASpadaro 02:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment Consider the "notabliity is not temporary" section of WP:notability guideline. I'd submit that there is no need for any policy change in order to argue for deletion in this context. Erechtheus 19:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Story is getting press only because of its similarity to the Laci Peterson story. It is a textbook example of missing white woman syndrome. - Brian Kendig 18:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the people who said we shouldn't have a page for every single missing person in the world and also the obvious case of missing white woman syndrome.
  • People gotta die - outside of the murder case that has been hyped up by the media, she is unnotable. However, it's the fact this case is so covered means she stays for the time being. Therefore, Keep. Guroadrunner 22:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. She falls under notability standards, but many of the arguments here are indeed raising a good point: she is only notable for being a murder victim by her SO's own hand and being found days later. So her case isn't all that unusual, but even then, unusual is not unto itself a criteria for inclusion. My own thought is that, since she's well covered, it is notable enough for our standards and therefore should be kept. I say "weak" though, on account that there's not much to work with right now - but then again, it is still a current event. A side note, her family has my condolences. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a significant event. I cant believe some have brought up MWWS. Anyone who goes on national news for a few days is significant enough for an article to be made about her. Besides, Kelsey Smith has her own page, and that was a similar incident.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Auno3 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 24 Jue 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete newsworthy is not noteworthy. Wikinews exists for stuff like this. Resolute 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - Is the Jessie Davis murder case "notable"? Per WP:notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ... So, (1) significant coverage? yes; (2) sources? yes; (3) reliable? yes; and (4) independent of the subject? yes. Since the Jessie Davis murder case satisfies all four of the notability guidelines, what exactly is in dispute here? WP:notability further defines these four criteria as: (1) "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. (2) "Sources" should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. (3) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. (4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Furthermore, WP:notability states: "Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article." So, once again ... what is in dispute here? Which of these 4 criteria is not being satisfied? (JosephASpadaro 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
    • For me, it fails the logic test. Quite simply, if you use this logic, then every single murderer, victim, most robbers, and a lot of various irrelevant people who get written up in the newspapers would be considered notable. That is why the "Notability is not temporary" section of WP:N is currently written as is: This is the current media flavour of the day. In a month, this case will be forgotten, if not sooner. Further, Jessie Davis' biography consists of this: "Jesse Davis is a murder victim." That is all that is actually written about her in this article. The rest of it belongs on Wikinews. Resolute 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Which logic test is that? Did you unilaterally decide to add a fifth element to the four guidelines of “notability” as defined by Wikipedia? If not, when (and where) exactly was your fifth guideline approved or incorporated into the Wikipedia definition of “notability”? Furthermore, you state that: “Quite simply, if you use this logic, then every single murderer, victim, most robbers, and a lot of various irrelevant people who get written up in the newspapers would be considered notable.” First of all, it is not “logic” as you put it, but rather it is the Wikipedia definition of and policy on notability. Second of all, if every single murderer, victim, etc. fulfilled these four criteria, then – yes – they all would (by definition) be considered “notable.” Third of all, I suspect that “every single murderer, victim, etc.” would fail the first prong: “significant coverage.” One tiny little article on page 14 of the ‘‘East Podunk Gazette’’ does not constitute significant coverage. I suspect that most ordinary run-of-the-mill garden-variety criminal cases lack the element of significant coverage. Such, however, is hardly the case with the Davis murder. (JosephASpadaro 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
Personally, I find it comical how you attempt to trivialize my argument by reducing murders in the news as being covered on "page 14 of the East Podunk Gazette". Pick a major crime, it will have significant coverage in major newspapers. It is quite unlikely that you do not realize this. However, this is really beside the point. Appearing in the news - be it local or national - does not necessaraly establish notabilty. It simply makes it a news story. This is the logic test that it fails: not everything that appears in the news is notable, despite this guideline. Even if the news story appears on CNN, or whatever. Resolute 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is sad that a missing woman turned up murdered, and that she was pregnant, and that perhaps she made an unfortunate choice as to the father of her children. But she was eminently non-notable before being murdered, and Wikipedia is neither a memorial site to write a nice article about people who got murdered, or a true crime story archive, or a newspaper. There is nothing encyclopedic about some non-notable person disappearing and being found dead. It happens millions of times a year. Per Wikipedia is not a newspaper this may be deleted even though she was a missing white woman who gained some coverage on the news channels, and even though the story appeared in several newspapers. There is also the WP:BLP consideration for her surviving 2 year old who may have witnessed the crime. Edison 01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I consider many murders and murder victims notable. I don't consider this one notable in any intrinsic way, and I cannot think of the basis for the press interest unless it was the near-term pregnancy--it isn't just missing white-woman, for this is much more coverage than usual. I don;t think the 2 RS test for coverage has much point any more, except in cases where we cannot think of a better standard. But I must admit that the extent of coverage does make this notable, as a press equivalent of an internet meme. I've suggested elsewhere merging the material on the alleged murderer into here. As she was apparently notable when just missing, we really can't use "Murder of J. D." as a title, though I think that would make sense most of the time for such articles, rather than the name alone. DGG 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep, there is no rule that says we cannot have an article on the event, and there's nothing keeping us from moving this to "Disappearance and murder of Jesse Davis" if what the article needs is a refocusing. The disappearance and murder have obviously received massive nationwide coverage, even if the rest of her life hasn't, so there's perfect cause to have an article on it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, I have been Extremely bold here, and restructured, merged, and retitled the article to be about the event, rather than have any pretense of being a biography. It is now at Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, and it includes descriptions of all the facts of the case, though more information on the scope of the media attention needs to be added, and the redundant article on the boyfriend has been merged in. I'd like to ask that everyone who was opposed to this for being a 'biography of a non notable person' consider it as what it really is, a documentation of a notable event. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I support Night Gyr's actions. (JosephASpadaro 02:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment Changing the format of two non-notable biographies into one non-notable article about a blip on the news radar does nothing to change the character of this article/these articles in my book. I'm not certain whether or not this sort of boldness is appropriate or advised in the face of dual AfDs, but that's really a question for another forum. What counts here is that we're still dealing with a news event that will be forgotten the next time the producers of nighttime news magazines need a new tragedy to peddle. Erechtheus 02:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I support Night Gyr's actions. I also support deleting this non-notable event article. I also think we need to tighten up our guidelines regarding what constitutes a notable event. Lots of news coverage may serve as a good indicator for Wikinews, but it does little (in this case) to indicate encyclopedic notability. Now, if some laws are changed as a result of this event, I'd certainly change my vote, too. Rklawton 02:44, 25 June 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.