Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Jace

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April Jace

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. Although the subject's death has received a lot of news coverage, she is not notable outside that one event and has never been the subject of significant coverage outside the routine news reporting of her murder. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL; sadly subject has no notability beyond this. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to michael jace. if the murder itself (trial, circumstances, etc) becomes somehow separately notable from the actor, then we can break out an article on the Murder of April Jace. and of course im sorry if this sounds cold. its just how articles are done here. My heart goes out to her family.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but refocus Murder victims don't do anything notable, it's all done to them. Athletes, on the other hand, accomplish things. If the angle was flipped to lead with the accomplishments, there'd be no problem in mentioning her death at the end. I don't know a lot about what makes a notable sprinter, but I know anybody can be shot. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously as the creator of the article I think it is valid content. Held singularly as a sprinter, as a World Masters Athletics Championships relay gold medalist, in what will be her only attempt, she is marginally below the threshold of WP:NTRACK. Most competitors who have WP articles, many I've written, have a long history of multiple such championships. She died too young to have many attempts and obviously will not ever get any more. Then there the additional circumstances of not only being a murder victim, but murder victim allegedly by a celebrity, in Los Angeles / Hollywood (with a history of bizarre trials and verdicts), where the story is already getting plenty of TMZ, Entertainment Tonight, Extra Access E! and mainstream news coverage. I've already added some of those sources, there are plenty more. She is arguably more accomplished in advance of her murder than: Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman, Bonnie Lee Bakley, Lana Clarkson, Mary Jo Kopechne and Reeva Steenkamp, who all have articles. Both factors should add up to individual notability and justification for this article. Trackinfo (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources for her track career are local track websites/blogs and not "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Also, those other articles you mentioned are about people who were part of an "event [that was] highly significant, and the individual's role within it [was] a large one". While Jace's murder may one day be as significant as the ones you mentioned, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and it is not appropriate to speculate as to whether or not she will receive such coverage. Lastly, as you mentioned she fails WP:NTRACK. Failing notabilty for track + failing notability for being a murder victim ≠ notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources I used are among the most reliable in Masters track. I use those sources frequently and they are throughout wikipedia on many of the articles on the subject. You or anybody else has not challenged their reliability until you wish to push for this outcome here. As for coverage, forget about the future . . . "April Jace" comes up as one of the top autoselections for the word April, even the letters "apr" on google. It already has had significant coverage in major media and celebrity media. Trackinfo (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Please, never, ever, ever cite Google's autocomplete feature. It goes by popular web searches in a time period and is absolutely unsuitable in any way as a cite. Nate • (chatter) 19:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • And the fact that it is one of the most common searches in the world at this time is invalid information because . . . ?Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • On Monday you had to type the entire name to get it to auto-complete. Three-five years later when the trial ends it'll be the same way. What may be 'notable' now when the Nancy Graces of the world are covering it is going to be barely remembered as such by the time an Investigation Discovery/Snapped 'paint by numbers' recap of the case airs. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • You make my point exactly WP:NTEMP. The story may fade in the future, all stories do. Wikipedia notability is not temporary. She has already received significant news coverage as the victim of a celebrity murder. You can't go back and erase the fact that she has already been covered by every major network, every major newspaper and celebrity news rag. She is high on google search ranking currently because of this fact. Trackinfo (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further note to Hirolovesswords: Do not go removing sources and content from an article you are already trying to attack on your assumptions of the quality of source. If you would like to challenge masterstrack.com, then let's have that discussion. I'm sure their nearly 20 year history of providing news about the subject of Masters athletics will show they are almost the de facto global source of information. Much like every major newspaper has a blog to distribute content, editor Ken Stone, a professional journalist formerly with San Diego Union-Tribune and Patch Media, uses the format for that site. Much worse, we can discuss the ethics of removing content during a debate about said content. Trackinfo (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that is exactly the disruption YOU are perpetrating with your edit war. Trackinfo (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and keep focus on the sport achievements. and then the death..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've recast the article to focus on athletics. Keep as a sports world champion. SFB 17:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sillyfolkboy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    • @Hirolovesswords: Apologies for cleaning up an article that is on my specialist topic area and making an argument to keep the article based upon notability of the topic that makes reference to previous consensus (??) SFB 19:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current format, with the notability focus on athletics, well supported by reliable sources. Nice work, SFB. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that MelanieN (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Note to whoever you are, anonymously expressing concern about this: Actually, I received a note on my talk page a few days ago asking me to chime in on a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, about whether masterstrack is a reliable source or not. I ignored it since I had no opinion on the subject. The note did not mention this article, which I came across today in the course of patrolling Articles for Deletion:California. A check of my contributions today will verify this. --MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as athlete, not a ONEEVENT case as she is notable outside her murder. Cavarrone 19:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge highlights to Michael Jace. Subject is not notable per NTRACK. — X96lee15 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although WP:NTRACK has no masters-specific guidelines, the subject was on a gold-medal 2011 world-championship relay team. This, IMO, meets #5 of the guideline; since the subject meets NTRACK, they also meet WP:VICTIM. Miniapolis 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Miniapolis. Subject is notable outside her murder, not WP:ONEEVENT ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 12:47, 31 May 2014 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/April_Jace&oldid=1137574017"