Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Waterman

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. Article about serious allegations against a minor that were never proved in court. Not enough material to provide a balanced article about the person and the allegations are ultimately just a news story. WjBscribe 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachelle Waterman

Rachelle Waterman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pretty much the same rationale for deleting Esmie Tseng. Is notable only for killing her mother and keeping an online journal. Except unlike Tseng, she was never convicted. Givenhands 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, while this Esmie person (I never heard of) pulls 800 Google hits, Rachelle's case drew in 10,000 - including UK news sites, an LJ community dedicated to her case, CrimeLibrary, CNN and People magazine...quite different from Esmie. On the other hand, Rachelle is a personal friend/acquaintance of mine, and having been found Not Guilty, her article at least needs a massive re-write to be less obtrusive and sensationalist...I just refuse to touch it. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • While not as widely reported, Esmie Tseng's case also garnered plenty of news coverage, including international attention and much coverage on online blogs. Rachelle Waterman has had more attention, but both pass the "media attention" test. That alone doesn't justify an article. There are plenty of criminals who garner short-lived media attention, but most aren't on Wikipedia. Both fail Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event.--Givenhands 09:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

a person is mentioned by name in an article about a larger subject but remains of essentially low profile themselves doesn't really seem to be addressing the situation where the person is the main subject, rather than 'part of a larger subject' - but nevertheless, how about combining Brian Radel, Jason Arrant and Rachelle Waterman into a single article? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 10:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Unlike the others, she actually did get quite a bit of national coverage within the U.S., including a Dateline NBC special and trial coverage on Court TV. I think that makes this different. This was more than fifteen minutes of fame. Beginning 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I think that the online journal and national coverage probably makes it notable. If there is a case for a wider article, then some one should write it. However that does not mean this one should be deleted - use links or 'main' templates to refer to the individual articles. Peterkingiron 00:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Uncertain I am much more dubious about this case than about E.T., and the reason is obvious: E.T. was found guilty, and R.W. was not. It makes a difference. In the one case we are recording a final decision by a jury after which news courses no longer refer to the 'alleged" criminal but the "criminal", we can say pretty much what we want without fear of legal action, and any harm we do is rather incidental to the sentence. In this case there has been no decision, the case has been dismissed, the person is not longer in prison, to call her a criminal would be libel, and additional publicity can affect her. Does she want publicity? Apparently she does want to, in order to proclaim her innocence, and she is old enough to make the decision. On that basis I can can see letting the article stay. I can also see deciding that we do not infringe on a minor's privacy, regardless of her apparent or actual permission--this argument was raised in another BLP case lately. What I am looking for is consistency, the consistency that comes from rational decision making. DGG 00:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete another example of news being conflated with an encyclopedic topic by those who blindly use news sources and ghits to determine the subject notability without regard to other factors, like the old 15 minutes of fame rule and other points concerning WP:N raised at WP:BIO. Eusebeus 13:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteWeak keep(changed per rereading of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section 10: "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article.") For 10,000 Google hits, 2 years plus of news coverage, early example of accused blogging about experiences. Acquittal does argue against keeping. Edison 20:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per my well-explained reasoning on the talk pages of WP:NOTNEWS. These stories all belong in Wikinews, putting them in an encyclopedia is inappropriate as they have no lasting historical impact. Zunaid©® 12:51, 30 May 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.