Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rogers Turner (2nd 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 keep. John254 02:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pamela Rogers Turner

Pamela Rogers Turner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I nominated this article for deletion over notability concerns, only discover by clicking the link in the afd template that it had been nominated before in 2005 with a result of DELETE. That discussion is below. But the article either wasn't deleted or was recreated. I think the subject is non-notable, and it ought to be deleted again! Dybryd 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This debate should be created under "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Rogers Turner (2nd nomination)" since there was a previous discussion. If it is a simple recreation of the old article, it can be deleted right away(WP:CSD#G4). --Phirazo 03:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

After the 2005 nomination (including a comment that the article can be recreated should Turner become notable with new news) resulting in a delete determination, the old article was deleted. After this deletion, more U.S. news on a national level came out about her, and another different Wikipedia article was written anew about her (with the same title) which included this latest news. The new article was not merely a recreation of the old article, but was independently written anew. Seksinfo 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. There are enough keep votes to disqualify a speedy delete anyway. If the result of this AfD is Keep (which seems to be the consensus at this point), an admin should do a history-only undeletion, so the old version is in the article's history. --Phirazo 16:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article was deleted when she was charged. She's since been convicted, paroled, reconvicted. The straight up weirdness of the whole thing makes it notable (for one, she was text messaging dirty messages to the victim from the courtroom while she was on trial). The fact that she committed the crime doesn't make her anymore notable than any other convicted sex offender...however, the completely bizarre stuff that kept popping up after she was convicted, served time and paroled made her notable. The case was covered by USA Today, the Washington Post, Newsweek. She's not your run of the mill sex offender. Smashville 03:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Since the second writing of this article, there has been numerous edits of this article, indicating significant interest in the article subject. Also since the second writing of this article, even more news has come out about her; that she apparently violated the terms of her probation (forbidding contact) by trying to communicate with the "victim" through the MySpace website in a rather unusual manner, resulting in national attention in the U.S. This action of hers resulted in another criminal charge. This latest news (made known nationally in the U.S.) made her even more notable. Although not yet as famous (or infamous) as Mary Kay Letourneau, Turner is well on her way. Seksinfo 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notability is not temporary. Chris 07:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree! That's why I nominated her!

Dybryd 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Still very notable in relation to an issue that continues to be notable. 23skidoo 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to kinda seal this. Subject meets WP:BIO because a) the text explains why she is notable, b) the text follows BLP guidelines, c) she is the primary subject of many reliable secondary sources - the article itself quotes The Globe and the Tennessean. As mentioned above, there are also sources available in Newsweek, the Washington Post, the New York times, etc, but there isn't necessarily a need to use them, as everything in the entry is referenced. She also meets the criteria of being a participant in a significant controversy covered by the media and she has been featured numerous times in the mainstream media. I think the more pressing question is...why do you argue that she is not notable? What is your reasoning? Smashville 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is the guideline WP:BLP1E, which says: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. [...] If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] Cover the event, not the person." Dybryd 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, though, the person and the event are inseparable. Smashville 14:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per 23skidoo who I would trust with my first born children, if I had any. Burntsauce 17:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions.
• Comment. This exact case was the basis for tonight's Law & Order:SVU. Two years after the conviction...Still want to claim it's not notable? Smashville 02:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Smashville. If it was on Law&Order, than clearly passes notability -- Elmao 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I will point out that my comment on the L&O episode was more WP:OR than anything...it seemed blatant to me, as I have been kind of fascinated by the case more or less from the day she was arrested, but others may disagree. Smashville 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Another hit on Google News...this one from Monday. Smashville 15:59, 12 October 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.