Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Catsouras (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 keep. The article has already been renamed and refocused during the AfD.[1] The nomination is no longer really applicable for that reason, though it may be renominated on different grounds if anyone wishes to. NW (Talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Catsouras

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requesting deletion per WP:ONEEVENT WP:BLPNAME and WP:BIO. The subject in herself fails notability, whatever about the incident and the aftermath. Though she is deceased, the criteria around BLP still largely apply here. Furthermore, the subsequent legal case surrounding this incident was dismissed. I see absolutely no reason why this biography should be kept. Alison ^❤ 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Article could avoid that if renamed "Nikki Catsouras fatal crash incident" or something, but would still fail WP:NOT#NEWS: an unfortunate accident, distasteful behaviour in the aftermath, a short-term sensation, but no legal liability, no changes in the law - it cannot be argued that there is any "historical notability" about this. JohnCD (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject of the article is not subject to BLP policies, her family, who make up a large proportion of the article, are. I have no problem categorising this as a BLP1E, and should be deleted under the principle of 'do no harm' anyway. Quantpole (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One way or another, this deserves to be in Wikipedia. The controversy over the leakage of the photos satisfies WP:GNG, although the article is not strictly a biography of Nikki Catsouras. People regularly discuss these disturbing photos on the Internet message boards, and the article provides some detailed background material on what actually happened.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Catsouras has a range of useful points. "Nikki Catsouras" is a popular but controversial search term on Google [2], and Wikipedia should have something to say. My votes goes to renaming or reshaping the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was located for a period at Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy, I moved the article back(?) because it simply was not primarily about the controversy but the individual (For example it starts "Nicole "Nikki" Catsouras (March 4, 1988[1] – October 31, 2006) was an American woman" and has sections titled "Early life" and "Events leading up to her death".). Refocusing (and retitling) the article might alleviate some of the concerns. Guest9999 (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)

Keep but Rename back to Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy and revise accordingly. Note that the article was moved to Nikki Catsouras less than a month ago: [3]. The subject lacks notability for a biography; the controversy over the photographs however was notable, and people who come across the images may appreciate learning something about the story's background. I'm not sure how much historical notability the case has or will have; it still appears to be ongoing in the appellate court, if I read this article from June 2009 correctly: [4] and it may well end up influencing future legislation: [5]. --JN 466 23:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't trying to predict the potential future impact of the case be somewhat crystal bally? Guest9999 (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't speculate one way or the other. But reputable sources like Newsweek (note the presence of the Wikipedia article on the topic overview page) do, and it is not inappropriate to write about that. As the article makes clear, her family seek publicity, wanting something good to come out of the case eventually, which weakens the BLP argument, provided our coverage remains sensitive. --JN 466 10:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it was a mistake to rename the article to Nikki Catsouras in the first place. The focus of the article should be on the legal issues that the case raised.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Catsouras case, like the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs, leads to important issues of ethics on the Internet. Nikki's parents accepted long ago that they will never eradicate all of the photos, although they have had some limited success. When people do a Google search on "Nikki Catsouras", it is better for them to find something reliably sourced at Wikipedia than the article at Encyclopedia Dramatica, which is tasteless and contains the uncensored photos. Rather than arguing about issues like WP:ONEVENT, we should be looking at ways of covering the case that are within Wikipedia guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved and roughly refocused, don't know if it will stick. Guest9999 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, well done. --JN 466 18:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, too :) - Alison ^❤ 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and refocus - per Guest9999. Good call - Alison ^❤ 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article is certainly vastly better, and I have thought hard about whether to change my "delete" !vote above; but I still feel this fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Sensational, disturbing, shows how badly people behave, yes; but historically notable? No. (And it's not our business to compensate for the excesses of Encyclopedia Dramatica). JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Subject is dead so BLP name doesn't strictly apply. Given the renaming to focus on the controversy there's really no issue. There's no NOTNEWS are similar problem since the issue of the photos has been discussed repeatedly by a variety of reliable sources over the course of a long timespan. Also agree strongly with Jayen that having a Wikipedia article on this subject if anything reduces harm emotional to the family. The point there is not that we should be compensating for bad behavior of others but that if we are going to seriously consider issues of emotional harm then we should take them in the full context. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (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.