Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk) (2nd nomination)

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 Snow keep, please request moves at WP:RM not WP:AFD. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Davis (county clerk)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kim Davis (county clerk) (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)

Fails WP:BIO1E. We now have an article about the "controversy", so this article is superfluous. Elizium23 (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I would tend to agree. This is covered in the controversy article which is a much better place for it since the issue deals with more than just her protest. Outside of this, she is not known for anything that would qualify her for her own page. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – This woman has received significant, lasting news coverage since her arrest, and isn't just some random person but is an elected politician in Kentucky, so that adds to her notability. The same-sex marriage controversy is what majorly makes her notable enough for her own article. Per WP:BIO1E, "If media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and move to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and delete Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (a new article that should not have been created and has very few contributors) – The person who made this nomination is ignorant of the discussion that has been taking place since mid-September about this article's existence and it's name and has not contributed to the recent discussion or to very much improvement of this article. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, the editors and I who have maintained this Kim Davis article are waiting for an administrator to decide on the matter of whether or not there should be one article about Kim Davis' controversy or two articles: one about Kim Davis' biography and another of her controversy (and possibly a third about all of the clerks in Kentucky). This is a time-wasting, drive-by nomination and should be considered as such. I would like to convince the editor who made this nomination to catch up with current events (Davis has been in the news this week regarding the less-than-truthful way her attorneys characterized her meeting with the pope), catch up with the recent discussion (multiple editors contribute multiple ideas to this article's talk page multiple times per day), and consider the idea of moving this article to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and consider the idea of nominating Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy for deletion. Prhartcom (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On procedural grounds this afd should be stopped because there are ongoing RFC's that predate this afd on similar topics as raised here. In any event there is notability of the person, that there was a spinoff article is no reason to delete the main article, so Keep. AlbinoFerret 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - The subject of the article is at the center of a historic series of events directly related to the most significant civil rights legal case of the past 40-plus years. As noted in WP:BIO1E: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Davis has taken her fight to SCOTUS; she's been jailed for contempt of court; she's the subject of satire and parody; and she has even managed to meet the Pope. Here are some additional facts to consider:
  • Since this article was created 32 days ago, it has been viewed 327,566 times
  • Someone is reads the article every 9 seconds
  • The article is referenced to 123 reliable sources
  • 154 contributors helped to build the article
  • Google has indexed 467 news articles about Kim Davis
  • Fox News has 162 articles about Kim Davis
  • CNN has 310 articles about Kim Davis
  • The New York Times has 268 articles about Kim Davis
  • Kim Davis has been the subject of newspaper coverage across the globe including Le Figaro, Le Monde, the Sydney Morning Herald, and The Hindu
  • Kim Davis has received persistent news coverage for more than 3 months
The reasons why we have notability standards is because 'We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." This subject easily and obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN (#2) and WP:GNG, and in no way violates WP:BLP or WP:NOT.- MrX 20:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WV, the previous result was a clear snow keep: 19 keep, 2 delete, 1 redirect. Your contention that the article should be about the event, and not the person, fails to note that the article is indeed primarily about the event, and then some biographical content is justified. This controversy is focused on the actions of Kim Davis, since the other two clerks in Kentucky who object haven't made any notable splash in RS. That forces us to follow COMMONNAME and what RS say and keep her name in the title, BUT it's not the optimal title; we also need to move it to the more descriptive title of Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and delete Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy (since it's pretty much identical, and we can move their short mention to this article). -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move, redirect or merge - I think that even if Davis is not significant, that the incident is. Therefore, if the article about Davis (which probably should remain) cannot be kept, it should be merged with Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy at a title to be later determined. I also agree that "there are ongoing RFC's that predate this afd on similar topics as raised here", and that we should try to discuss all of the issues in one place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Subject was arguably notable before the controversy and the Pope flap can be argued to be a second controversy involving her. Also, this is an obvious keep per her wide notoriety even if commonly believed to be tied to a single controversy. Kim Davis is a notable person, period. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. Article is not about the clerk but the controversy, and the article should be so titled. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given that there's already an ongoing discussion on the Davis page about these issues, this nomination is rather unhelpful. Branching off into other places to mere rehash the same things that are already being talked about isn't a good thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Matter already covered in controversy article. It seems quite a few editors in the US of A think any individual involved in a single controversy or who has met the Pope is notable enough for a BLP. This is a clear-cut case of WP:GEOBIAS. In the UK a few years ago, a couple refuse to allow a gay couple to share a bed at their guest house, on the basis of their "Christian values" They were ordered to pay compensation and lost all appeals. This controversy does not have an article, let alone a BLP for the guest house owners. If this happened in South Africa or New Zealand or Greenland would an article have been created? This is also a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" Also, take note of this "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Are editors here now arguing Davis is as notable as a political assassin? AusLondonder (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is indeed far more notable then Davis herself, but the two pages are linked right now in terms of ongoing editorial disputes. The stick is far from being dropped, so to speak. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, like the nominator, it doesn't sound like you have read the article or understand the situation. Please read the comments above. Please actually read the Kim Davis article and notice that it is much more well-researched and well-sourced than the Kentucky article. If you object to the existence of two articles on this subject, please understand that the Kentucky article is the one that needs to be deleted and the Kim Davis article needs to be renamed to Kim Davis same-sex marriage license controversy and become the controversy article. Prhartcom (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets notability and the article is well-sourced.--JumpLike23 (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I guess in terms of wanting respect for procedure, I'm going to go ahead and formally just note that I want the article to be kept at least for now. Ideally, I think that Davis is not as notable as the controversy that she created and the negative social, cultural, and political influences from her malign actions (not to mention that this is an ongoing matter). The best solution could very well be for there to be no Kim Davis article and all of the related content moved over to the Kentucky same-sex marriage license controversy article. That's what I predict will eventually happen since it's most in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Until then, though, the necessary option is to keep this article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets notability and is well-sourced. It is not unusual for an elected official that has garnered a fraction of this much attention to have a far less detailed article. This seems like a valid keep. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 07:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no "controversy" beyond her, and she is, while loathsome, internationally notable. This article should be kept, and the article on the "controversy" deleted, since the only purpose that article serves is to try to not have an article about Davis personally. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Internationally notable"? How many people in India have heard of it? Have you read WP:ONEEVENT, by the way? AusLondonder (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Australia, and I've heard about her plenty, so yes, "internationally notable". Trying to have this deleted on the basis of WP:ONEEVENT makes no sense because there is no event, there's an antagonist. Her actions, her court cases, her political interactions, the story is about her personally and not one thing. People are hella grasping at straws here to find an "event" that they can use to try to justify WP:ONEEVENT on because there isn't one, and if they succeed our content will be the worse for it: were we covering a similar equivalent twenty years ago, we would unquestionably be writing about the antagonist themselves, not a faux-"controversy" article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Mexico and was recently involved in a discussion with people from Belize, Jamamica, Barbados and Trinidad on this very topic. She is internationally recognized. Her, not an event. Her actions are being questioned on the basis of her claim that she can break a law with impunity when she is a public officer. Her story and actions are much bigger than just the same-sex marriage controversy. SusunW (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettable but definite Keep. I hate to recognize her noteworthiness, but she has certainly become noteworthy. I intentionally avoided adding her name to the "Same-Sex Marriage in the United States" page to avoid giving her fame she didn't deserve. Eventually however her name was in the news so much that it couldn't be denied that she is at least infamous on a national if not international scale. One hit wonder or not, she is notable in history. The aforementioned reasons others have listed here are more than enough reason to close this rfD now. Njsustain (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Njsustain, you are admitting an obvious bias, which, fortunately, you were able to overcome. As editors, we do not do that. We present what is in the reliable sources and never let our POV influence us. Prhartcom (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We are still hearing about her on the news, and this will continue to be something that can be brought up during the ongoing same-sex marriage controversy in the U.S. She seems notable enough for her own article. Versus001 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article contains over a 100 references. That is enough to show notability. JDDJS (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no merger. She is notable for her actions, the same as George Wallace was notable for his, Rodney King was notable for his, or Jim Jones was notable for his. As stated above, from an international perspective her actions are much broader than simply a same-sex marriage controversy and a merger to an article entitled with her name and the same-sex marriage controversy would be inappropriate. Events and the people, as historically shown by the examples given, are not the same. The issue of whether a public official can flaunt the law or a portion of it is not the same as a simple case of refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses. SusunW (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Kim Davis with George Wallace? He was a governor of a state and a presidential candidate -- Kim Davis doesn't come anywhere close to his stature. Comparing her with Rodney King? That's a strange segue -- he asked everybody to get along. Davis has done that? Comparing her with mass-murderer Jim Jones? Good heavens. That's an even stranger segue. They were all notorious and famous for numerous reasons. Kim Davis is a 1E; this article and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Winkelvi Actually, there are aspects of similarity to all three. Most similar event to Wallace's. Her case is similar to King's in that he was non-notable before the event. He was a taxi driver. After the event, he was scrutinized repeatedly for the remainder of his life. Jim Jones as well. Little known pastor, until he moved to California and began courting media attention. After, the event his life was scrutinized in minute detail. However her stance works out on the same-sex marriage issue, it would seem she will remain on the public stage, if our history is any guide. SusunW (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
History is a guide in my comments above and my comments now: Wallace wasn't a one-hit-non-wonder like Kim Davis. She is known for one event. That's it. Wallace was a long-term Governor and well-known politician in the South. He ran for president. There's no comparison between the two. Rodney King was known for one event, however, his one event became a trial. Big difference. And, truthfully, I think he would be insulted to be compared to Davis. Jim Jones was known long before Jonestown in his home state of Indiana and in the San Francisco and Northern California areas. Again, your examples are non-applicable. I know, however, that I won't convince you of that. For whatever reason, you've decided that a 1E individual deserves an encyclopedia article about her regardless of how this encyclopedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Kim Davis is known for several events: winning an election, denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, petitioning the Supreme Court, going to jail for contempt of court, and for exaggerating her brief meeting with the Pope. WP:BLP1E exists so that we don't create articles about private citizens who have had brief flurries of fame, for example, for being arrested for drunk driving. WP:BIO1E exists so that we don't have articles about low-profile people who have had insignificant roles in single events, such as George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating. - MrX 00:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Winning an election: A local election. Not notable -- we don't do articles on elected officials in podunk towns that have no notability just because they are elected officials. Denying marriage licenses: That's covered in WP:1E. Petitioning the Supreme Court, going to jail for contempt, allowing her attorney to exaggerate her moment with the Pope: none of these things are notable. What has given her pseudo-notability is the news media. And policy on that kind of thing is covered in WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The multitude of sources that cover each of these events disagree.- MrX 01:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Just because it's covered, that doesn't make it notable, content- or article-worthy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - She has garnered national attention with a deluge of press articles, legal proceedings, even meeting with the Pope. She is notable and the article meets the requirements of notability. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"She earned this article" Huh? Article subjects "earn" articles in Wikipedia as if it is a prize? That's certainly not the focus of the encyclopedia. Can't say I'm sure how you came to believe this. Please see directly above for how comparing her to Wallace is not applicable. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I clarified the issue. Your views are your views and my views are my views. It's ok if they are different, but it begs the question why would you lobby so strongly against an article that has more sources that most bios. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2015 (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/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1077963565"