Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Catsouras

Nikki Catsouras

Nikki Catsouras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I created this article myself a few months ago. I believe some people here may know about this story - basically, a girl in California who died in a car crash, then photos of her fatal accident were leaked to the internet, resulting in a legal case, which may yet lead to a change in the law. It meets verifiability at the basic level, being covered by several U.S. news sources, although it doesn't seem to have reached an international level of coverage (for example, I have no evidence whatsoever that the story was ever covered in the U.K. media). Also, it may fail WP:BIO1E, and may also be a coatrack article for her accident, the photographs and the lawsuit, instead of about her (a non-notable teenage girl who died in a tragic accident). BLP may be taken into consideration given that it's an ongoing legal case involving the family etcetera, but if the case leads to a change in the law I believe it may be genuinely encyclopedic enough, but at the moment, I'm not totally sure and have different feelings now than to when I created the article. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – Sorry to say. As the nominator points out, the individual, in and of themselves, is not notable for any other reason than the circumstances of one event. In that the one event cannot bestow Notability as outlined in both notable only for one event and and Wikipedia is not a news source, I regretfully say delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely WP:NOT#NEWS, and precisely what WP:ONEEVENT was created for. The only possible justification for this article, aside from the brief media coverage, is that it provides a route to the real story and the tragic experience of the family for the 99% of people who only saw the gruesome photos (and I'm not looking now, but I think even Snopes omits the worst one). That's not encyclopedic, though, and itself leans on WP:SOAPBOX. --Dhartung | Talk 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with California Highway Patrol. Unless I overlooked it on my quick skim, this case isn't even mentioned on the CHP page yet. Townlake (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I could endorse a merger, too, if consensus goes that way. It probably deserves no more than a sentence or two. Also, we don't have an article for the Alton Parkway, where it happened. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Typically you are right, a merge under the heading {Controversy} would be appropriate. However, a Judge has already ruled that CHIP has no liability in the case. Yes, I understand the ruling is under appeal. However, if CHIP has no liability, than no {Controversy}. Call it a Catch 22. ShoesssS ^Talk 03:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment That might be a matter of perception. CHP has formally taken responsibility for the photos; the issue is whether legal liability flows from that. And even if CHP is totally vindicated, the written record of the debate over this will outlive us all. (This is the latest news story I was able to find about the proceedings - which is already a ref in the article.) Townlake (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – I should have started out saying I see no problem with a redirect and a mentioning of the situation on the CHIP page. What I would be against is a full blown merge of this article into the CHIP article. I feel if that were the case, it would be undue weight, of the importance of the case. I think we are on the same side – saying the same thing but I am talking Philly and you are using proper English :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 20:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Haha... yes, it sounds like we are. I agree on the undue weight - a Cliffs-Notes of the article would certainly strike me as adequate. Townlake (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, at least in some form. I read an article mentioning the incident and did a google search on the victim's name. I was glad to find a Wikipedia article that answered my questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.113.76 (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: If the author wants it and has some decent reasons, then so be it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to be at least two events, the death and the subsequent legal action on an Internet related litigation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Move to Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy per WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Dude, she is dead, BLP doesn't involve dead people, the "L" is for living. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Sir: mea maxima culpa. I can't believe I made such a huge mistake, linking to the correct guideline albeit using the technically incorrect alphabet. Move per WP:ONEEVENT (links to the same exact guideline, but alphabetically correct). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep WP:ONEEVENT does not apply because there were three events - the crash, the pictures being taken, and the lawsuit. These events and the young woman are notable and many sources exist (as shown on the page itself) Ben1283 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)