Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose (2nd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose

Wikipedia is not a memorial, Should be deleted. We dont need a page for every death in the world. Also Not Notable. Feedyourfeet 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the page is obviously problematic, but with her death mentioned in a parlimentary debate - there may be some notability. WilyD 17:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with regrets. I would ordinarily say that the article could be merged into an article on the alleged perpetrators, but they are all minors who can't and haven't been named. Wikipedia has sufficient articles already about noted criminal misconduct to which this article is similar that it would be inconsistent to remove this one. If the names of the perps were known, it would be a different matter entirely. Badbilltucker 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments made by Capitalistroadster at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clea Rose. If I may quote him, he said "There is some implications in that the tapes from the security cameras in Civic (the CBD of Canberra) are missing and that there is some indication that there was a police chase underway when she was hit. The underaged driver of the vehicle is facing manslaughter charges as the result of her death. There will be a coronial inquest into her death. This case has been newsworthy in the ACT and raised in the Legislative Assembly." Yamaguchi先生 23:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. This nomination is simply a WP:POINT revenge for my votes to delete Stephen Battaglia and Zazz. The Rose case has received much media attention here, sparking an inquiry, a coronial inquest, much political wrangling, and a review of national police procedures appears to be coming. To this extent, it was the subject of a nationally televised television program aired only two nights ago. This is very clearly notable, which is why I'm trying to get it to featured status, and I really don't appreciate this useless stunt. Rebecca 01:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to accuse the nominator of bad faith - the article reads in many ways like what he or she accuses it of being, and if the accusations were true, deletion would be appropriate. The nomination may have been hasty, but it's not rediculous. WilyD 13:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Rebecca's evidence establishes sufficient notability. Maybe we haven't heard of her on a worldwide scale but in her home country she is big news. This article is also really well sourced and researched. Cyde Weys 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as there is no new motivation for deletion beyond what existed in the two previous deletion cases. -- Seth Ilys 02:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was an Australian Story piece on the ABC last Monday. There are 49 returns for "Clea Rose" on an Australian media database - if it included the Canberra Times it would be 100. Contentious coroners inquiry to start soon. Capitalistroadster 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- FTR, there are 175 hits from the wider Factiva newspaper database. This is more than some politicians I've written about. Rebecca 04:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would this article be better served by turning it into a legal case article about the crime itself? That would cement its validity as an encyclopaedic article. If it's an important ACT case it should be notable. (JROBBO 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- The crime itself is not particularly notable (people get run down every year), and if that were the issue, it would have never had one to begin with. The issue (and the focus of the media attention) here has been the responsibility of police for the death, and the subsequent inquiry, inquest, calls to change police procedures nationally and ongoing political ramifications stretching on for more than a year, as well as the Walk for a Rose brain injury awareness event, which saw a lot of media attention here. This is why there is only a section of the article dedicated to the actual legal proceedings. Rebecca 06:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a noteworthy case. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tidy up to be more explicitly an article about the noteworthy case not an apparent bio. As a bio it's a delete, lacking any biographical substance, as a noteworthy case it's not. Just zis Guy you know? 08:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Canberran, I saw this coverage in the press, and it was huge. Definitely notable and easily verifiable per above. Doesn't read like a memorial either. --james^(talk) 08:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obviously-noteworthy subject. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and caution nominator.--cj | talk 09:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly not just a road death. --Canley 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known in Canberra --Astrokey44 14:27, 9 August 2006 (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.