User talk:King of Hearts

Old talk is at /Archive.

Please note that I will usually reply to messages on this page, unless you ask me to respond elsewhere.

Please use the link provided in the blue box above which says "Please leave a new message."
This way, you will be able to give your comment a subject/headline.

If an admin action made by me is more than a year old, you may reverse or modify it without consulting me first. However, I would appreciate being notified after the fact.

RfA fun :)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Good man. Orphan Wiki 10:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilia Carr

Hi. I think I understand why you closed the Emilia Carr AfD the way you did. However, the range and depth of coverage has not been significant enough to establish notability, and that includes the section on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in Wikipedia:Notability (events). There has been no coverage beyond the local media. The incident (which is ongoing, so the coverage is ongoing) has attracted no in depth or case studies as mentioned in WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. My reading of the AfD is that there are 20 deletes to 13 keeps, and that the deletes are correctly citing guidelines while the keeps are using their own notions of notability or are incorrectly citing guidelines, as in the case of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I understand why you would think that mentioning coverage for a number of years would apply to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but a careful reading of the guideline, in particular the final paragraph, will help to clarify that that is not what it is saying: "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 initial coverage has not died down (the argument for her notability is that she is in prison, she is still in prison, it's ongoing). The incident has not been cited as a case study in any sources, let alone multiple. It remains a local story of no interest beyond the local community. Our guidelines advise us fairly clearly against covering local interest only media stories. If the case ever does get taken up by reliable sources beyond the local media, then the article can be revived, but for now it's one that we delete. Let me know what you think. SilkTork *^YES! 23:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the initial wave of coverage has not died down means that we cannot base our decision on whether sources have actually cited it as a case study, and therefore must speculate. If both sides are based on unsupported speculation, the article would get deleted since there is nothing to indicate that she will continue to be notable. But there are multiple sources emphasizing the fact that she is pregnant, so there is good reason to believe that it will be cited as a case study in multiple sources related to pregnancy and the death penalty. We don't know for sure, hence the "no consensus" close. Think about it this way: Even if comparisons to California did not surface until months later, if 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami were nominated for deletion now, would it be deleted? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I don't quite follow your reasoning. You based your close on WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, though that section of WP:EVENT doesn't support keeping the article - the wording is such that it supports removing the article. You now appear to be saying that at some point in the future there may be a case study. If there is such a case study then the article can be revived, but our policy (WP:CRYSTAL) is not to keep speculative articles.

I understand the difficulty of the AfD. I was asked to get involved, and at that point it was snowing with Keeps based on a belief that women on death row are inherently notable. It was only when I began looking into our actual guidelines and policies that I could see that articles on local events which have not attracted attention outside of the local media are specifically excluded from Wikipedia. It appears that people have been misunderstanding or misquoting our guidelines.

Would you want to look again at the AfD and the relevant guidelines, or are you still comfortable with the close to keep the article? SilkTork *^YES! 15:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of articles about recent events that have survived AfD with no case studies simply because they have not had the opportunity and time for those to develop. (Note: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply here; its implication is that other stuff exists because no one has bothered to nominate it for deletion, or other stuff doesn't exist because no one has bothered to create it.) In a similar vein, we do not need to already have these case studies for this recent event to be notable. WP:CRYSTAL generally refers to speculation about content, not in-universe speculation. Since this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources and is still ongoing, the best we can do is "no consensus." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've opened a DRV as I feel that a wider discussion might be helpful. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 2. SilkTork *^YES! 22:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)