Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Seaman

Add links
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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Seaman

[edit]
Nancy Seaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As tragic as this persons story might be, there is no indication that this person is of encyclopaedic note. Fails WP:PERP in that the victim was not notable, and that the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime was not unusual. Mtking (edits) 08:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge & Redirect per all of these WP:1E, WP:PSEUDO, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E it should not have its own article. By all theses guidelines it should be deleted or merged into Mariticide and redirected both of them are stubs. This would not be in a set of encyclopedias and is not encyclopedic content on its own. The event is way bigger then the person. The crime is all this person is known for and is in prison for a life sentence so its likely all she will ever be known for.Theworm777 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why does coverage over a 7 year span in TV, a book, the media, and a scholarly publication not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? The guideline specifically says: "If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance." The event was in 2005. The scholarly publication in 2007, the book in 2008, the TV episode in 2012 are "multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down". -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*She is currently serving her life sentence. The initial coverage is still what this is in. It takes time for trials and appeals once they are finished initial coverage has ended. It needs to be merged into Mariticide and the page redirected to it. It is not encyclopedic content on its own plan and simple.Theworm777 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I can't accept the position that "initial coverage" can last 7 years. In my view, there is clearly WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE here. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 02:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Theworm777, the vast majority of the coverage is just of a routine type crimes of this nature get. The only non-routine is the TV program but one cable TV program about her does not make her notable. Mtking (edits) 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree that a book, a TV episode, and a law journal article over the course of 7 years is "routine" coverage. Further, the overwhelming majority of convicted murders are never covered in law journals and by justice organizations. Indeed, organizations such as the Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project specifically avoid "routine" cases and pick ones notable enough to justify the use of their limited resources. I respect your point of review, but given the evidence here I simply cannot agree with it. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 03:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you agree or not premeditated murderers have trials and appeals that can last over 10 years and there is basic news coverage of almost all of their trials and appeals in all murder cases. Even if your right and it falls under WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE there is alot of other reasons to merge or delete it. Almost all the sources are questionable (WP:NOTRELIABLE) also, as alot of it is quotes of a convicted murderer and her son. Another source is from Carol Jacobsen ,Director of the Michigan Women's Justice & Clemency Project, advocating for human rights of women prisoners and freedom for women wrongly convicted.{URL|http://www.lsa.umich.edu/women/faculty/facbio.asp?ID=186} Who would or could be bias on the subject and falls under (WP:NOTADVOCATE). Stuff from the jail web site is not allowed under WP:BLPPRIMARY. The other sources are mostly about a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC like murder, Clemency Project, or women wrongly convicted, not about Nancy Seaman. Most or all of the other sources are questionable under WP:SOURCES and WP:THIRDPARTY. I don't think the stuff with questionable sources can be merged maybe it has to be deleted. Theworm777 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you justify the statment, "almost all the sources are WP:NOTRELIABLE"? Generally, AP, ABC, CBS, and law journals are considered reliable sources. These sources are 50% of the ones provided in the article. You're really overstating your case by making broad claims like "almost all" the sources are questionable. Simply linking to rules without any explanation is frowned upon in WP:AfD (and many of the things you linked to don't even apply, see next paragraph). You need to be explicit about why you believe a source is unreliable or otherwise not usable. In my view, the only source for which you've successfully done this is the jail website source.
Also, your are misapplying WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:THIRDPARTY. Your use of these rules doesn't make sense in the context of your argument. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline for WP:Disambiguation. WP:NOTADVOCATE applies to propaganda and advertising but "an article can report objectively about [advocacy], as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view". WP:THIRDPARTY is not a policy, it's an essay (see WP:SA? and WP:WORTH).-- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 04:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persistent coverage. Significant coverage has been less persistent, but significant coverage at and around the date(s) of the original events and trial, coupled with continuing references to the event as an example, suggest ongoing notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject of a book and a tv series episode, both years after the fact, is more than sufficient coverage; though both should be added to the article. --GRuban (talk)
  • Keep Looks like she has gotten a lot more than routine coverage, per the sources presented here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage after the event.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the legal journal article. That section of the article d=needs expansion. There is, as typcal with many crime articles, a little too much emphasis on the details of the crime, but that is correctable by editing. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nancy_Seaman&oldid=1138112242"