Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Rae Trueman

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Rae Trueman

Because the case is currently before the court, the family respectfully requested that this case maintain a low profile so that it doesn't go against Kelly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenelo (talk • contribs)

Note: To prevent the matter of contention from being picked up in forks, I've stubified the article. Here's a link to the version before I stubified it: pre-stubbing Andjam 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Wikipedia is not here to aid a legal defence nor do families have such right to censorship of public information. The article on the Bali Nine was created 5 days after their arrest. I fail to see see how this event is any different (apart from the progress of the case). Best wishes to the families involved, and no harm intended, but information in the public arena is now public. Some exposure may very well save her arse. -- Longhair 12:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not for the reason given by the nominator but because these drug smuggling cases are very frequent and there's no evidence provided yet that this person is individually notable (unlike, say, Chapelle Corby). --kingboyk 12:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Difference between Corby and Trueman (at the time of article creation) = media exposure -- Longhair 12:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Experts in the media should have a say in how notable a person is. Andjam 12:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete for a lack of notability on the part of the girl. A tragic case regardless of the outcome, and if the media end up picking up on it it will quite possibly merit inclusion regardless of the feelings of the family on the matter. Currently, though, the interests of notability and those of the family coincide. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 12:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I should probably add that I'm an Australian and follow the news closely. This was the first time I'd heard this name, which is either proof of non-notability or proof that the family have done a good job of hushing it up so far. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Although Longhair's by the book approach is admirable I sincerely believe that someone's life is more important than that. The article should be put back only once the court has stated on her case. Maybe having such a detailed account of the Bali Nine so early was also a bad thing, but with Australian medias already battering about them it was hard for Wikipedia to ignore it.Kenelo 12:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no google news hits, so not very notable. If we don't hear about her from mainstream Australian media, we shouldn't hear about her here. If she gains enough media coverage, then whether or not she has a wikipedia entry won't be a problem any more. Also, might contravene policy discouraging autobiographies. Andjam 12:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now, but check it out again in a couple weeks. — Werdna talk criticism 13:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Partly out of concern, but mostly because she just doesn't seem notable. Google hits of any kind are quite low[1] and it doesn't seem to amount to much in the news.--T. Anthony 15:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case I feel I should add that I don't always go by Google counts. If someone died before 1960 or lived in a nation with minimal Internet access, like say Niger, I usually don't go by that alone. However being Australian I think if she were notable something more would've popped up.--T. Anthony 15:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If deletion is requested for this kind of thing, this should be done with Danny or Jimbo, not by filing an AFD. Molerat 15:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Although I was at first inclined to agree with Werdna, I realized that the amount of hashish Kelly Rae Trueman had could be sold for $50,000, a mere amount compared to the 3+ million that could be made from the heroin smuggled by the Bali Nine. However, this could lead to something bigger, but I really doubt it. --Nishkid64 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, nn alleged criminal. If this blows up in the media a la Corby and the "Bali Nine", then recreate. Lankiveil 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC).
• While I feel sorry for her and her family, there are no Google News hits [2] and nothing on Google News archive [3]. This seems unverifiable as it stands. Capitalistroadster 05:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability, not in any way because it was aked to be removedCriptofcorbin 07:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions -- Longhair 23:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Andjam and Capitalistroadster.--cj | talk 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepWeak Delete - Simply because it has been requested that it be deleted does not make it deletable (note that we still have Daniel Brandt's article), and wikipedia is not censored. And I encourage people to watchlist the article to be sure it stays neutral and cannot thus swing the case either way. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Being requested doesn't make it notable either. Are you finding things notable about her I didn't? The Bali Nine were to get life or even death. I don't see why just any Australian getting ten years in India is notable, explain.--T. Anthony 11:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the subject has been written about by mainstream media, and Schapelle Corby ended up with 20 years IIRC, but I have changed my vote to weak delete because of a note in WP:BIO that states that multiple media companies writing about a news event only count as 1 (thus not multiple not trivial published works). Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - in a poor attempt to keep the whole "legal-terminology-thing" going here, it would set a precident for people like Brandt to have their articles deleted by pure wish. If Wikipedia was based on what people wished for, and not on the underlying policies, imagine how some articles on Wikipedia would read - POV-like. We cannot comprimise the encyclopaedia because of the subject's wishes - thats called vanity. And if you think that this is non-notable, maybe you should see all the other articles without even a single source - I reckon this would beat 25% of Wikipedia articles purely because it has a news source. I also agree with Longhar that "Wikipedia is not here to aid a legal defence nor do families have such right to censorship of public information". It goes against Wikiphilosophy. Daniel.Bryant 03:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- there is already precedent against deleting an article due to the subject's wish. Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley have both had their requests respectfully denied. - CheNuevara 03:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. We don't want to overturn that, nor do we wish to set a new precident allowing these people to claim this. Daniel.Bryant 03:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete BigHaz has summed it up perfectly. Ohconfucius 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the fact that the family's wishes are not a valid reason for deletion does not mean that the article should be kept. No evidence of notability. JPD (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note Jimbo Wales has noted in an unrelated AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination)) that you shouldn't keep an article just because the person asked for deletion. Most of the keep people haven't argued that the article's subject is notable. Andjam 10:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An event that is, at present, of itself not notable, and unless the case becomes huge (eg. media attention, or Aus. govt. clemency appeals) then it will not warrant an entry. Howver, a bad faith nomination based on the anon's reasoning in my view. Harro5 11:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be too harsh on someone new to wikipedia. Andjam 13:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet BIO criteria.--Peta 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Rebecca 01:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a not notable alleged criminal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:09, 21 September 2006 (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.