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 No consensus. After carefully reviewing all rationales given here (and purposefully letting my eyes glaze over re: the unnecessary and unhelpful delving into personal and incivil commentary that was extremely off topic from both "keep" and "delete" proponents), I do not see a strong consensus one way or the other here. (If you're wondering, the raw !vote count, BTW, is 35 to keep, and 22 to delete, with other "merge" and "rename" suggestions mixed in). There are strong arguments given with good rationale for both opinions, but many seemed to boil down to "Keep it for now because it's already here and we can revisit in 6 months" vs "Delete it for now and we can revisit it in 6 months". These arguments in many ways cancel each other out.
There is clearly a divisive meta-issue that underlies this AfD that goes way beyond Ms. Carson, and as could be derived from Wikipedia history and precedence, (again, cited by both sides), this particular AfD is obviously not the first of its kind and unfortunately likely not the last. That to say, I give much credit for proactiveness (regardless of the outcome) to User:Fritzpoll and his proposal at village pump and in his userspace to hammer out a guideline for this type of inevitable article that can address these continual and almost 100% predictably heated debates. They've happened before, certainly, ad naseum even, and they will happen every time the nightly news reports a new horrendous murder that reaches beyond local coverage. No consensus was arrived here, as is true of previous debates, for deletion or keeping this article, which by precedence, defaults to Keep.
Also, several editors mentioned valid rationale for a rename to either "Murder of..." or something similar. I have no opinion regarding a rename of the article to correctly document the event vs. the person, that is a non-AfD action that is more appropriate for the talkpage of the article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eve Carson

Eve_Carson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

WP:MEMORIAL 24.124.109.67 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete She is not a notable person. This is an encyclopedia. I am sorry for her death; I pray for her and her family in this time of disappointment and loss. Would I add her to the Britannica at this moment? -- No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.36.226 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I hate to break the news to you, but this ain't the Britannica. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This may not be the best place to ask, but since I've never looked at the Britannica, I'm curious as to what their standards of inclusion are like.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• You can reasonably assume that they are a lot stricter than this site. For starters, they wouldn't be letting IP addresses be doing edits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's obviously not user-generated content. But I'm wondering just how deep their coverage of obscure topics is, because Wikipedia profits from being so comprehensive and is still growing.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder what their coverage is for world-shattering topics such as the Yankees / Red Sox rivalry, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete NON-NOTABLE. Selurmsiladnav (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep FOR NOW - At least until all the facts are in. There is no necessity of deleting it in a big hurry. She was the UNC student body president, and it's a national news story. [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note also that the nomination was made by an IP address with a recent history of vulgar entries. Anonymous, cowardly - like the murderer. [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment the above is incivil and violates WP:AGF. Please confine remarks to whether the article complies with policies and guidelines, without personal attacks against the nominator or other editors participating in the AFD. Edison (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • We don't operate in a vacuum. The nominator's motives are subject to scrutiny. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I could easily argue that Natalee Holloway is no more notable than Eve Carson is, because no one outside of her circle ever heard of her until her disappearance. So why does she merit her own article? Only one reason: Intense media coverage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The fact I couldn't even spell her name right tells you how "notable" she personally is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson (2nd nomination) as a duplicate discussion; the nominator's comment from there was:

First of all, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Prior to her tragic death, the only aspect that stands out about her is that she served as the UNC student body president. Student body presidents are generally not notable as they do not receive significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. A Google News search shows that Carson hardly received any coverage from these type of sources prior to her death. The majority of the articles in the Google search that mention her are from The Daily Tar Heel, UNC's student-run newspaper. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Regards, cab (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per my explanation above. Thanks for pasting it here, CaliforniaAliBaba. BlueAg09 (Talk) 10:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Redirect to Murder of Eve Carson. I agree with the other editors that she is notable, but her death is. Readers doing research on the media's case of missing white woman syndrome will be interested in this article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Whilst a tragic death, being the victim of a crime does not automatically make someone notable. Inclusion of this material would be acceptable if the individual had other claims to notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. From what I can see from the sources and discussions on the article talk page, this is not the case. I therefore conclude that the article fails WP:BIO because the depth of coverage in cited sources is insufficient to assert sufficient notability for inclusion. Best wishes - Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a current event of national note, and someone might come here expecting to actually find out something about it - as I did, since you all hadn't deleted it yet. Ironically, this article is better researched than a lot of the junk on this so-called "encyclopedia". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Wikinews exists to note about noteworthy events such as this one. Wikipedia holds a different purpose. BlueAg09 (Talk) 11:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • the fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to retain an article that doesn't satisfy the notability guidelines. - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold off for awhile per WP:IAR. Emotions are probably very raw at this point among anyone who knew her, and the AfD notice might add insult to injury. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 11:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable person and being murdered doesn't make her so. WP:NOTNEWS/WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E. As to whether an AfD would upset someone who knew her -- I find it far more likely this was created by someone who saw the news rather than family/friend as if they're mourning her death, the first stop would probab;y not be Wikipedia. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikinews is the proper venue for breaking news stories. Purely a memorial article at this point. Fails WP:BIO. Also delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If in the future it turn out there is a murder case and trial which is notable, and which leads to societal changes or new laws, then Eve Carson murder could be created. Edison (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect/Change article to 'Death of Eve Carson Everyone is right, the circumstances of this case don't all of a sudden make Carson notable, but her death and the investigation into it's circumstances could certainly warrant an article. This article wouldn't be a memorial as it would have very little to do with her life.Gwynand (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to something along the lines of Eve Carson murder or Death of Eve Carson. Eve Carson does not merit an article; her murder, however, has received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. The victim is not notable, the event is. Not to break Godwin's law, but a comparable example would be the average Holocaust victim: individually, most are not notable by Wikipedia's standards, but they were involved in an event which was notable. faithless (^speak) 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. We have no idea how notable this will be. As for her being famous for just being a victim, that's okay. We have lots of entries for people that are famous mainly for being victims of crimes- See Donna Lass, Natalee Holloway, Shafilea Ahmed, see [[Category:Unsolved murders]] for more. Remember (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now. It can be better re-evaluated with the perspective of time in six months or a year or five years if there's still significant feeling at that time that she's not notable. Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and if the article is deleted now but it's decided in a year or so that she was notable after all, the work that has already been done is lost and has to be re-done. Also, I'm opposed to moving this to Eve Carson murder or Death of Eve Carson. While there doesn't seem to be any uniform policy on Wikipedia, and examples of both can be found (that is, there are articles on people notable solely for being murder victims directly under the person's name, and there are articles on people notable solely for being murder victims under the event), it seems looking at the various subcategories under Category:Murder victims, that it's much more common to have the article under the person's name directly. (Granted, not all of those people are notable solely on account of being murder victims, but many are.) Chuck (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - To both the above comments: if this becomes notable later, then the article can be recreated. The point is, as you imply in your comments, that she is not notable now and we cannot have an article on the basis that it might become encyclopaedic in the future - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Where do I imply in my comments that she is non-notable now? Chuck (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • In the line It can be better re-evaluated with the perspective of time in six months or a year or five years if there's still significant feeling at that time that she's not notable - if she becomes non-notable in the future then that would be irrelevant if she were notable now, since, per policy, notability does not expire. Really this latter point was directed at the first comment than yours. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep If the national and international news organizations consider her death to be notable, then I'd say it meets the Wikipedia criteria. - Damicatz (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - She was not notable prior to her death, and her death does not make her notable now. People die everyday and make the news. We're not a record of the world's deaths. Lara❤Love 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the assertion that a person who is not otherwise notable cannot become notable through the manner of their death. If that were the case, Thich Quang Duc would not be notable, a conclusion which I find patently absurd. (This is not to say I am certain Eve Carson is notable, only that I find "she was unnotable prior to her death" unconvincing as an argument for her non-notability now.) Chuck (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
    • On further reflection, I may have misjudged LaraLove's comment, as it admits two possible readings. If LaraLove meant "No person who was non-notable in life becomes notable due to their death," then I disagree, as above, but I see now LaraLove's comment might also mean "Eve Carson's death in particular was not sufficient to make her notable," in which case my comment immediately above was not relevant. Chuck (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm saying she was not notable before her death and her death does not make her notable now. People makes the news with their deaths every day. People who would otherwise not be in the news. That alone does not establish encyclopedic notability. For that reason, this article should be deleted. Lara❤Love 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Then why aren't you over at the Natalee Holloway page beating the drum for that article's deletion? If anything, Holloway was less notable before her disappearance than Carson was before her murder. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Sure, people make the news with their deaths every day. Very very few of them receive as much news coverage as Eve Carson. This is hardly a case where the lone independent reliable source is a one-paragraph obituary on page E13 of some paper. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Carson was the student body president at a major university and she died under suspicious circumstances. Many people will read the news article about her death and want to know more about her. Wikipedia is the first place that many people turn to in order to find out such information. Because of this there is no reason to delete this article. Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia, and if the people are interested in reading biographical information about a person in the news then they should be able to. There is no need to delete it at this time. If in the future the story dies down (e.g., if it turns out to just be a random shooting and doesn't evolve into the next Stacy Peterson or Natalee Halloway case), that would be the time to reconsider its inclusion in wikipedia. - BenjamintChip (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned by others above, Wikinews is this purpose. Wikipedia is not intended to document current events that are unlikely to be notable in the future. If it is notable in the future, then the article can be created in the future. But it is not notable now, so the argument is that should not be included - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then they would have to start from scratch. Right now, the info is here. It's better to decide to delete later, when the news impact has died, and have everyone say, "Well, yeh, OK", than to be pushing this during the "heat of the moment." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would guess a lot more people know what wikipedia is than know what wikinews is. This business of trying to manage the thinking of the internet reader is patronizing and offensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from accusing me of being patronising and offensive. I am making an argument in a deletion debate based on my interpretation of the policies of Wikipedia, which have broad community consensus. I tend to find that people actually use search engines to find people, but end up at Wikipedia if it is high in the search rankings - but such an argument is irrelevant in the context of a deletion debate. Regards - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not claim that you are personally patronizing and offensive. I claim that your words are. You are trying to dictate how the public should use wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. I am trying to suggest that the policies of Wikipedia preclude this article's inclusion at this time. See WP:NOT#NEWS for the policy I refer to. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wikinews is this purpose. Wikipedia is not intended..." are words that attempt to dictate how the public should use wikipedia. And again I ask, what policy makes Natalee Holloway more notable than Eve Carson? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have explained repeatedly in response to your comments, this is to do with Wikipedia's policies, and your interpretation of what I mean is therefore incorrect. As to your second point, this too has been answered on this page, and I ask that you take any further comments regarding this topic to my talk page. For reasons of space, I will not clog up this AfD by responding to your comments on either of these matters on this page - Fritzpoll (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The public perception of wikipedia as a (hopefully) reliable source of information is more important than boxing wikipedia's content in by arbitrary rules. If someone comes to wikipedia to find information about this story, then they should be able to find it, some way or another. And they shouldn't have to somehow know that they should be looking at wikinews. If they go to wikipedia, then wikipedia should, at least, give them the link to the wikinews article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this comment on my talk page - Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, we can create an interwikimedia link to the WikiNews article just like this. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If I come to wikipedia looking for info, and I enter the name, and it takes me someplace that gives me the information, that would seem to be the important thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now at least, there have been lots of university shootings as of late that I think are important to inform people about, and its possible that this falls under the same umbrella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth0707 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Further comment addressing objections several people have raised (I already recommended "Keep" above): In response to those citing WP:NOT#NEWS, it says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." While murders are regrettably far more routine than they should be, they are still significantly less routine than "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," so I do not see that as an argument against an article such as this one. In response to those citing WP:ONEEVENT, it says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The purpose of this, as I read it, is to prevent someone noting that, for example, a friend or teacher of Eve's was quoted in a news article about her, and creating an article about that friend or teacher, but Eve herself is hardly "low profile" in relation to this event. After reviewing WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:BLP1E, I withdraw my objection to moving this article to Eve Carson murder and redirecting Eve Carson there. Although this does not appear to be the most common practice on Wikipedia with respect to people notable solely on account of being murder victims, it does appear more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Chuck (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Everybody is famous and special and has the right to have a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzy1976 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the more sarcastic "keeps" I've seen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient notability in her life to warrant a WP article. Death should not determine notability. Seems like another case of MWWS to me. WWGB (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A death that receives significant coverage can easily make an otherwise non-notable person notable. See Thich Quang Duc for an example. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I don't quite understand this zeal to eradicate knowledge from the encyclopedia, particularly when this is exactly the sort of information I come to Wikipedia for, not simply when it is a current event, but in the years after it occurs, to see what information has been uncovered over time. Her death is a strikingly important event for the UNC community, for the state of North Carolina, and for the nation, and I have to disagree that the nature of one's death has nothing to do with notability. I also have to argue that maybe the boundaries of taste and human kindness should lead us to postpone these sorts of discussions about victims of murder until some time has passed (a delay which cannot, I think, harm the integrity of such a capacious and idealistic project as Wikipedia); there is something really unseemly about having such extensive (and dismissive in tone) public conversations about Carson's notability at this moment. Would we say make this sorts of assessments in person in front of her family and friends right now? I don't think so, but internet discussions are no less public. This is an important discussion, but perhaps it is best postponed so that no one else will have the shocking experience of going to the page and finding her (by all media accounts a very accomplished person) called "non-notable" at this particularly sensitive time. Porpentine (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could save the family further distress by not having these articles appear with such haste after the death. Current news belongs in Wikinews, not Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A redirect to wikinews would cover the bases. But the above argument has nothing to do with policy, and I'm sure CNN is much more likely to cause the family stress than wikipedia would. Also, "insufficient notability in her life"? She accomplished more than Natalee Holloway did. Natalee Holloway is less "notable in her life" than Eve Carson is. Yet she has her own article, driven strictly by media coverage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure it is as possible as you imply to separate policy and the ethics of human consideration. Certainly journalists and scholars consult this ethics of appropriateness constantly when they consider their work and the way they talk about it. Also, I am sure that all kinds of media coverage (news and scholarship) is distressing to the family, as is the very fact of the event, but it seems we can avoid a great deal of offense (which I would define differently from distress) not just to the family but to a much wider community by postponing a discussion which may involve repeated assertions of how non-notable this person was. Later I would love to participate in a debate about whether notability must be earned in life (it seems to me that death is one of life's events, and can affect notability quite profoundly), but I am reluctant to go any further than that at this sensitive time.Porpentine (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right. This haughty, shameful discussion of whether she's "notable" or not, i.e. whether a bunch of anonymous editors (me included) think she's "worthy" of inclusion - in a website that considers articles about cartoon characters to be "encyclopedic" - is about 100 times more offensive (and 100 times more likely to cause "distress" to the family) than the mere statement of facts in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews does not, however, serve the same encyclopedic function of tracing the development and accumulation of information regarding the case to present an authoritative set of information about it over time. This is why I came to wikipedia for information on this very subject. We have to ask ourselves what is to be gained for Wikipedia by deleting an article like this? I can only think that it will mean that information will not be there in the future for those, like me, who are bound to search for it. In response to the comment that it would save the family further distress not to have encyclopedia articles appear so quickly, I can't say I understand that logic, particularly paired with the assertion that the same information should appear in Wikinews. My argument is that the information about the case, which is of prominent importance on the national stage right now, and will be of importance on the level of state and university for some time to come, should be provided dispassionately (as befits a mutable and communal encyclopedia), but that the discussion of this widely mourned figure's non-notability can't help but cause offense at this time. It shocked me, and I have no personal connection to the victim beyond a shared alma mater. One doesn't have to be a family member to find this a distasteful debate. In other words, I disagree with this move for deletion on both the levels of policy and taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porpentine (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who is completely emotionally detached from this, I just have to say that Wikipedia has a series of policies about what does and does not warrant an article in an encyclopaedia. Your only edits to Wikipedia have been to this page, so you may not be aware of these, but one such policy is WP:NOT#NEWS, which seems to cover this perfectly. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, editors have to try to remain dispassionate about the subjects of articles - and this includes considering those that are nominated for deletion. If it is important to the university as you say, then at some stage place a subsection in the University's article with appropriate information. It may seem unfortunate that our reference to policy in this regard is "non-notable", but in the context of many of the comments above, I don't believe it is offensive. - Fritzpoll (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell me the policy that explains why Natalee Holloway is more notable than Eve Carson. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This deletion debate is about the article in questions. The relevant guideline to this point is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - namely, that the existence of other, similar material on Wikipedia is not a good argument for retention. I have no opinion on the other article as I have yet to read it, and have no intention of doing so any time soon. It may, however, meet the deletion criteria, but has yet to be nominated. Who knows? The argument here has to be about the article Eve Carson, and on the basis of the article's own merits, I believe it should be deleted. - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, it was never even brought up. Yet it was a totally news-driven story. There is nothing about Natalee Holloway herself that would seem to fit the "notability" criterion. But no one on this page is in any position to know whether the Eve Carson story is ultimately "notable" or not. I don't understand this rush to delete stuff. Well, I think I do understand it, but let's not get into that just now. But it's unfair to delete it now and 6 months later have to rebuild it from scratch. Why not wait 6 months and then decide? Or are you afraid that the energy for deletion will have been lost by then? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The answer to my question, by the way, is that the Natalee Holloway story is notable because of the way it was covered, not because of Natalee Holloway herself. But the article isn't called "News coverage of the Natalee Holloway disappearance". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look at the history, and it doesn't appear that an AfD was brought up for the article you keep bringing up. That says nothing either for or against whether this article should be included, as I state in my comments above. If we don't know if the subject is notable now, it's because there is no evidence that she is, in which case she is non-notable per policy and the article should be deleted. There is nothing wrong with recreating the article at a later time if notability is established - the "rush to delete" as you put it is to prevent every little event and insignificant piece of information going into the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I really don't have a great personal desire to see the deleted - my participation in other AfDs indicates that I support retention sometimes as well as deletion, so I am uncertain what your latter comments about being "afraid" refer to. Please take this discussion to my talk page - Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A redirect to wikinews is unacceptable on the basis that the two sites operate differently. It will not be an encyclopedic article and such direction does not work. A link to a Wikinews article within the Eve Carson article is doable, though. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless notable later on -- right now she might be notable per US news, but is she notable later on?Guroadrunner (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You won't know until later on. You can't possibly know now. So later on, the subject could be brought up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to a small mention in University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for now. Wikipedia is not a news service.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • That's for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. To reiterate on the above, although this is written in an encyclopedic fashion, she doesn't appear to be especially notable for anything in particular during her life, and at its core it's just a sad news story, and not necessarily an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia. I think it merits a mention in the relevant educational institution's article, though.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Doesn't appear to be" is the keyword there. Neither you nor anyone else can know yet. Give it some time. You can always delete it later. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Need I remind people of the controversies surrounding the twice Afd Anna Svidersky article? ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete for lack of lasting impact at this point. Until her murder, Miss Carson failed WP:BIO, prominent though she was at her school. Now, she's made a lot of headlines, but whether her impact remains beyond this week or next remains to be seen. Let's delete at present and, should her case continue to have an impact, recreate the article in half a year or so. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Lasting impact?" From 3 days ago? And how do you plan to get the information back? It's more efficient to keep it than to have to start from scratch. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, exactly - we can't tell if 3-day old events of borderline notability will have a lasting impact, so that's why it's best to wait a while. There are three ways of getting the information back: you (for example) can copy the text onto your hard disk or e-mail and upload it again in a few months; an admin can un-delete the page then; or we can Google "Eve Carson" then and re-create the article. A bit cumbersome, but at least it would enhance our reputation for scholarliness. Biruitorul (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • "Scholarliness"? That's funny. Tell me another one. P.S. I already did. But why go to that trouble? Why not just revisit it in 6 months or 3 or whatever and then delete it. There is no shortage of disk space. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Note I said it would enhance a reputation that isn't that great at present. Since this debate is likely to end in a draw, let's agree to that - in June or September, we'll think about the "lasting impact" part of the equation. Biruitorul (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - This really baffles me. Every single time that someone dies, and it makes big headlines / national news (like this case), Wikipedia has the same exact AFD debate as above. We could probably just cut-and-paste, word-for-word. Why do we keep re-inventing the same wheel, over and over again? Can't "we" (Wikipedia) just come up with some standard on this issue ... so we don't have to reinvent the wheel every single blessed time that a death / murder news story makes national headlines? The debate always comes down to "yes, she's notable" ... "oh, no, she's not" ... "oh, yes, she is" ... "oh, no, she's not" ... like a bunch of kindergarteners fighting. Everyone here has too much free time on their hands --- and are too itchy to demonstrate their "authority" and perceived empowerment (i.e., lacking elsewhere in their lives) --- if we need to go over this very same issue ad nauseam each and every time. Who (somewhere at Wikipedia) can just come up with a policy -- for once and for all, through consensus -- about how to handle these new-breaking stories of death / murder? Or, alternatively ... I am sure that this very same (exact) debate occurred for Natalee Holloway, Laci Peterson, Jessie Davis / Bobby Lee Cutts, etc., etc., etc. Why are we constantly re-inventing the wheel? For some reason or another (good, bad, or indifferent) ... the Holloway, Peterson, and Davis articles are still in existence (i.e., survived deletion). This case presents the exact same arguments, nothing novel. So, ultimately, what is at issue here? Or -- rather -- hasn't this "issue" already been decided umpteen times over, ad nauseam? Certainly, no one in the USA (or, internationally, for that matter) ever heard the names of Holloway, Peterson, Davis before they died. Yet, they (and a myriad of others) survived AFD's. Yes, you can be non-notable before your death ... and notable after (indeed, because of) your death. So, what's the big deal? Is this a new concept? I feel like going over to the AFD debates for Holloway, Peterson, and Davis ... cutting and pasting them here --- since it is all the same exact issue --- and concluding with "no consensus to delete". As happens every time. Why do you (we) Wikipedia folk insist on spinning your collective wheels? Some famous person (who?) defined insanity as doing the same thing over repeatedly and expecting a different result. Why can't we accept past debates on similar issues (i.e., Holloway, Peterson, Davis, etc.) and just be done with it? Or, from this issue, just get it over and done with in a collectively-agreed upon policy? Unreal behavior. Really baffles me. People just like to hear themselves talk, and argue, even though the very same issue has been already decided 1,000 times in the past. And I am sure there is no unique, novel distinction that this case brings to the table that all of the others didn't. You wonder why Wikipedia sometimes resembles kindergarten recess time, with kids fighting over some stupid toy and -- once they get it -- they don't even want to play with the toy. They really just want their own way. They just argue for the sake of arguing -- and want the toy only because someone else wants it. Unreal behavior. Any feedback? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Comment - Of the articles you quote, only one has ever been nominated for deletion (resulting in "no consensus"), one doesn't have an article, and one redirects to "Disappearance and murder of...". I agree that it would be good to have some kind of fixed consensus, and have started a discussion at the Village Pump based on your proposal, but for now, we can only judge the current article based on its own merits, not on the availablility of other information on Wikipedai - Fritzpoll (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"Based on its own merits"... Well, it seems to be written factually and even-handedly and is well-sourced - more than I can say for a lot of the stuff that appears here. Meanwhile, I wonder how many of this panel of nose-in-the-air "notability" judges were college class presidents and whose own deaths would be national news? I'm guessing not many. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Follow Up: Furthermore, if Eve Carson indeed is not notable ... how would it possibly be that everyone here on this page (and in the USA, for that matter) knows her name? Let's use some common sense. We all know Eve Carson's name ... we all know Eve Carson's story ... hence, notable. If I dug up some random murder story from the Nome Alaska Daily News that says "Alfred Q. Rickinstock was murdered yesterday" ... no one has ever heard of Alfred Q. Rickinstock's name ... no one has ever heard of Alfred Q. Rickinstock's story ... hence, not notable. Come on, people ... is this rocket science? Is this brain surgery? Let's get a dosage of common sense somewhere along the line. And, really, let's be clear ... no, you are not the editor-in-chief of Brittanica ... you are just a regular Joe Schmo sitting at home in your pajamas, editing Wikipedia. That's all. That's neither good, bad, or indifferent --- but it is what it is. Come on, already. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Comment. Whilst Joseph A. Spadaro raised some valid points here, he should have done it in a different manner. Although he did not name individual editors, the diatribe (which actually had some good points in it, I think) that he just posted is bordering on a personal attack, which is definitely not allowed on Wikipedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Above Comment: To "his space research" ... thanks ... yes, of course, there are indeed many valid points. However, how in any way is this a personal attack? And, by extension, how is this in any way disallowed? Against whom (i.e., which "person") is this alleged "personal" attack? Perhaps, I am attacking a silly and inane Wikipedia process (if you can even call it that) ... as opposed to some fictitious Wikipedia person ... no? Your post that my post is a personal attack should be retracted. Please re-read my post. I am clearly attacking an ineffective and inefficient Wikipedia process that serves none of us well. You also state that I should have done it in a different manner? In which manner would that be? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Unforetunately, a year from now or when B. Spears does something stupid, the public will move on and say "Eve who?""--70.188.129.189 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I hinted at it earlier, and your questions demand an answer, so here it is: There are certain editors who have made it their mission to watch for this kind of article and to push for deleting it. That's why they are called "deletionists". They want to keep wikipedia in a box. Their first priority should be to serve the public, but no, their first priority is to destroy anything that doesn't fit into the box. That's what this is about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Baseball Bugs. But -- yes -- I know the underlying politics. But, it's not answering my question of: why can't this "issue" be decided for once and for all ... via policy, consensus, whatever. Why the need to reinvent the wheel each time? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

There are equally a number of editors who see it as their duty to rush into print every time some pretty young thing with a toothy smile gets bumped off. It's like a badge to be the first to post an article. Perhaps if they showed more restraint, and waited a decent period of time to see how the issue develops, then the other side wouldn't see the need to restore some balance. It's very convenient to "blame the deletionists" for causing all this trouble, but the ambulance chasers are just as much to blame for these ongoing conflicts. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. Do you even know what an "ambulance chaser" is? In a nutshell, the people who post these articles (even if quickly) are not trying to get money / pay / compensation for doing so ... are they? What are you suggesting ... that person X dies ... and we should wait 4 years to write the article? Or 4 months? What time frame suits you --- since it can't be "right away" ...? Also, you seem to have quite a bias against pretty young (murdered) women ... which is no different than a bias for them. No one on this page -- or anywhere that I've seen -- is talking about "a pretty young thing with a toothy smile getting bumped off" ... and if that's your perspective, then that says a whole lot about you. I don't think people care if they are pretty with white smiles. I think people care because these are young, bright, intelligent, hard working, ambitious, creative, gifted people ( ... with 100 more adjectives I can throw in ... regardless of being pretty or not ...) and they are being killed in the very prime of their lives. They, their family, and all of society as a whole is being robbed. Hence, as a whole, we in the world lose a future doctor, lawyer, researcher, professor, or whatever. Someone who was going to make a difference in the world. We all lose when a bright young life is senselessly taken. It has nothing to do with whether Eve Carson is or is not pretty. She clearly was going to amount to something, when she got older and entered her career / professional life. Heck, she was already "somebody" now at the age of 22. So, your whole MWWS syndrome argument is baseless. No one cares because they are pretty white women. People care because these victims (and all of us as a whole) lose when such gifted victims (pretty or not pretty) are taken from us. When some crack-addicted drug-dealing prostitute gets murdered --- you can bet that there will be little sympathy, generally speaking, on a widespread scale. It's not because the prostitute was pretty or non-pretty. It's because she was contributing zero to society ... and, if anything, was draining society. These pretty young murder victims are only contributing to -- building up -- society, independent of them being pretty. I am not saying that murdering a prostitute is right -- it's still illegal. I am saying that public outcry and reaction is much greater (notable) when a promising future is snuffed out versus when a low-life "nobody" is snuffed out (by their own doing, typically). And, I assure you that I am not the only one who thinks like this. So, please get off your MWWS soapbox ... and your bias against "pretty" murdered women. And see the issue for what it is, rather than creating some emotional and inflammatory diversion. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

And, by the way, many editors on Wikipedia respond quickly / instantaneously to events. I am sure that the very second someone won the Super Bowl, some editor typed that info into Wikipedia immediately. The very moment that Coen Brothers won Academy Awards, the info was immediately put into Wikipedia. Within seconds, literally. That's how Wikipedia works. Ya ... so what? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Delete. As others have said, this debate comes up whenever some random person dies in the news. And every time their article gets deleted -- this case is no different. Wikipedia is not a news website. 24.126.197.197 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The Natalee Holloway article is still there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The poster above states, quote: And every time their article gets deleted. Uhhhhhhhhh ... Natalee Holloway ... Laci Peterson ... Jessie Davis ... do you want 1,000 more examples? When did Holloway, Peterson, Davis, and the other 1000 get deleted? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Excellent point. Obviously, he's wrong about it getting deleted. This is entirely a function of the amount of media coverage, despite protests that, for some reason, "it shouldn't be." And what Mr. Spadaro said earlier is also true - obviously, the notability guidelines are either flawed or are being applied only whimsically. The problem is with the guidelines. Presumably, that needs to be addressed, i.e. challenged on the guidelines page. Meanwhile, if Holloway, Peterson, et al, can stay, so can this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is also deju vu. A couple of weeks ago, the deletionists were arguing against an article about the NIU shooter. They lost that one, too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per rationale of Benjamintchip, and she potentially more notable in her own right than Natalie Holloway. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep There has been immense media coverage of this case. It is not Wikipedia who decides which articles to keep, the media has already made this case far more important than other murders. EgraS (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete After reading refs from John below Keep Meets notability. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 22:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- per noteability and memorial. --70.188.129.189 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ONEEVENT "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:MEMORIAL. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Then you had best get busy pushing for deletion of Holloway, Peterson, et al. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that WP:ONEEVENT would support a move and redirect to Murder of Eve Carson, not a wholesale deletion. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment to Baseball Bugs We get it with the Natalie Holloway reference. Repeating the same WP:ALLORNOTHING argument over and over and over and over doesn't make it any more valid. Please use a new approach with unique arguments or stop filling this AfD with this. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No, you don't get it. You have yet to answer the question: Why are you not pushing for delete of those other articles? What's special about this one that you're so anxious to delete it? Why are you applying the guidelines arbitrarily and capriciously, instead of uniformly? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment to Comment to Baseball Bugs: Regardless of how many times he has (or hasn't) said it, Baseball Bugs is correct. Murder victims like these either are or are not notable ... let's just pick one, for once and for all. Wikipedia does not exist in a vacuum. It is a collection of many articles. That is, Holloway and Carson (and others). There does need to be some internal consistency - or enforcement - of a "policy" ... otherwise, why have (and indeed, what is) a "policy"? The argument that people keep throwing out (Other Stuff Exists) is nothing more than a red herring. Perhaps "other stuff exists" because it has been deemed non-deletion worthy. In which case, it is indeed relevant. Just because "other stuff exists" does NOT mean (as some would like us to believe) that it only exists because it has not yet been nominated for deletion (assuming that it would be deleted if a nomination had occurred). In fact, quite the opposite. Many times "other stuff exists" because, after a deletion debate, it was found that it should indeed exist. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
      • This is oversimplifying the issue. Each article contains its own set of unique facts and should be judged separately. Oversimplifying all dead person biographies by assuming that they all contain the same information and categorically declaring them as either notable or non-notable based on these limited facts is inappropriate. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The only "unique fact" about those other cases is overwhelming media coverage that would make wikipedia look stupid if we didn't have an article about it. Every argument that's been used against the Eve Carson article can also be leveled against the other cases. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • To User 24.124.109.67 ... you are not wrong. Clearly, every case is unique and presents its own set of facts, etc. That's stating the obvious. So -- as Baseball Bugs indicates -- what is the distinction (if any) between all of these rather similar articles? If they are all indeed similar, they should be treated similarly (either all deleted or all kept). As, presumably, we are applying the same standards / policies to all. As you say, different facts may call for different conclusions. OK, that's fair enough. So, as Baseball Bugs asks, what is the distinction here ... what is the set of unique facts about the Eve Carson case that would call for deletion when the other (arguably similar) articles do not? In essence, all of these articles boil down to "she wasn't notable prior to death and her death ( does? or does not? ) make her notable now". So, if the Eve Carson case has special facts, please illuminate. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC))
• Keep: Most everything has been said and discussed. This article is necessary. The ultimate truth is that WikiNews and Wikipedia, despite any efforts by either to make them individual entities, must at some gray area overlap. RShnike (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Meets notibilty Scanlan (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep - She is notable and the article deserves to be in there. --Reezy (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: We can probably all agree that no one ever heard of this woman prior to her death. But so what? Who ever heard of Sirhan Sirhan before he killed Kennedy? Whoever heard of Charles Manson before he killed Sharon Tate? Whoever heard of Mark David Chapman before he killed John Lennon? Whoever heard of Joran van-der-whatever-Sloot before he (in my opinion) killed Natalee Holloway? For that matter, whoever heard of Marion Cotillard before she won the Academy Award? At one moment, people are non-notable ... and perhaps in an instant, they (or their story) become notable. And, clearly and obviously, sometimes that one instant is a death/killing/murder/etc. ... whether criminal or victim. What vacuum-sealed planet are some of these posters living on? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Chapman and Sirhan became famous because they killed very famous people, and the reasons they did so, are also of more than family interest. In this young lady's case, no one outside her immediate family and colleagues would have counted her notable. If I was murdered in identical circumstances, I wouldn't want to be up on Wikipedia either. For a start, it's an invasion of privacy without any justification on the grounds of general and widespread interest. Hate to break it to you, but this is not global news.Be best (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)\

Uhhhh ... yeah, I think I'm well aware of who Chapman and Sirhan murdered. My point was that some people become notable after only one event and sometimes (oftentimes) that event is their death/murder. Furthermore, when did "global" become the barometer for Wikipedia notability? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Duke and NC State are playing a memorial game for her. I'd imagine her colleagues number quite a few. I think we should set a precedent by deleting Holloway or McCann before we deloete this. I am very much opposed the Missing pretty girl syndrome or something like that but hey, its a national story. Editorofthewiki 10:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable person, personal tragedy, nothing that notable about the crime either. Sad, but so are almost all murders.Be best (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is a national news story. Let's see if it turns out like Holloway. Give this some time to settle thinggs out and then you can nominate it again. Editorofthewiki 10:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a tragedy, no doubt, but no page existed prior to her death and once the commotion settles there will almost certainly be no traffic to this page. The precedent has already been set to NOT setup individual pages for the vistims of other school shootings like Columbine High School massacre (Rachel Scott is a notable exception, but there's a fair bit extenuating with various causes in her name that merits a Wiki entry for here). If something similar comes from Ms. Carson's death, then it may merit a page ... but for now I vote for deletion or a possible merge with the UNC page. Mike Helms (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment There is a concurrent debate going on right now that has very similar facts as to the one here. 24.124.125.33 (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, similar stories that are both being well-covered by the media. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Lauren Burk. This article is important as one of a series of similar murders during a time frame. If you want to combine articles, that's ok but a little confusing....People say notability. Well, that's the notability, similar crimes over a similar time. Otherwise, an isolated killing isn't always noteworthy, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• — Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 16:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikinews:Eve Carson. Notability is not temporary, BLP1E, etc. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That would keep the history intact in case it needed to be resurrected, right? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Right. If this develops into long-term notability, then the content would quickly be accessible for an article. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable as of yet. If some big conspiracy develops that resulted in her murder then a deletion review can be requested. Otherwise this reads like an obituary.Renee (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:BIO1E. Not everyone in the news is Wikipedia notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that WP:BIO1E would support a move and redirect to Murder of Eve Carson, not a wholesale deletion. Chuck (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets notability guidelines. -- No Guru (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. SuMadre (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Regarding the WP:ONEEVENT argument: first, I believe this supports my argument that the article should be moved to Eve Carson murder or something similar; the person is not notable, but the event unquestionably is, having received extensive national (international?) coverage. As the policy states, Cover the event, not the person. Second, I believe this is a fundamentally flawed policy; Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Mark David Chapman, Thich Quang Duc, the list goes on and on. Most murders aren't notable; then again, very few murders receive the amount of media attention as this one. Non-notable person, but notable event. faithless (^speak) 20:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Doesn't make sense to delete this and then keep others listed under the Wiki Category:Murdered students. If you delete this, you might as well delete the others also. Msw1002 (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Possibly Rename as Murder of Eve Carson Though Eve Carson is not herself not necessarily notable outside her murder, she is one of many people whose murders have made them notable.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Notable even before her death, as per her stature as president of a student body of approximately 30,000 students and as evidenced in numerous articles about her in notable secondary sources (The Daily Tar Heel) prior to her death. (To those who would argue that the DTH is a non-notable source, I would respond that it is the newspaper of record in a community with more citizens than many of America's medium-sized cities. It has a circulation much larger than many local newspapers serving such cities. It has a strong reputation for, and has won awards for, its unbiased and impartial coverage of events relevant to that community. It meets every criterion for a Reliable Source with flying colors.) The fact that nobody bothered to make an article about her presidency prior to her death reflects only that Wikipedia was not the most efficient source for such information at that time (the DTH website was more than adequate). Now that she is notable on a national scale (her national notability does extend from her death, yes), people across the country who have never heard of the Daily Tar Heel predictably turn to a national source of information such as Wikipedia and expect to find information about her there, including links to sources like the DTH where they can learn more about her life. Others have pointed out some of the more disturbing dimensions of this debate (zeal to diminish the "notability" of a person so soon after that person's death, in violation of a widely accepted social norm not to speak ill of the recently dead; the fact that this exact same debate happens after any previously-non-national public figure dies; the fact that as a reflection of (or in spite of) all Wikipedia policies, numerous biographies exist on Wikipedia for persons whose notability stems only from their death and whose lifetime accomplishments are much less than those of Ms. Carson; the fact that despite Other Stuff Exists (which, in case some of us need reminding, is not Wikipedia Policy in favor of inconsistent editorial decisions but instead an essay discussing the challenges of maintaining consistency), consistency IS IMPORTANT in editorial decisions and it would be a mistake to break with Wikipedia precedent in this praticular instance. As a final observation, I would point out that if the events that had caused Eve Carson to reach national notability had been of another kind (say, e.g., a corruption or sex scandal, I predict that all the editors arguing here for non-notability on the basis of publication in the Daily Tar Heel would instead be arguing that Eve Carson was a public figure for the purposes of the First Amendment, not entitled to legal protection from defamation, citing exactly the same articles in the DTH.Yls07 (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You did not address the fact that the Daily Tar Heel is not a THIRD-PARTY source. It is the official student newspaper of the university, so of course it's going to publish her name multiple times. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. Prior to her death, she has been only mentioned in the DTH. BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I take it you have scanned every newspaper in America before making that bold statement? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Take a look at this Google News search, which I also linked above. BlueAg09 (Talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- agree with various statements about major incident at large university; ALSO: (1) we have many other school shootings on here -- i.e. Virginia Tech -- I understand that this is only one person, but what do we OBJECTIVELY decide is the tipping point for deserving an article? Three victims? Five? Eight? How can we do this objectively? Until that question is answered, I think it would be too hasty to delete this article. (2) this article belongs here in the name of completeness of coverage of two topics: school shootings (of which there has been a scary string in the last decade), and mixed-race killings (black guy killed a white girl). More knowledge is always better than less knowledge, especially in an encyclopedia. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This wasn't a school shooting. She was a student, yes. But all this was was a normal murder, just like Lauren Burk. They just both happened to be students. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Normal murder??? Holy Moly! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Lets everyone bear in mind that the inclusion or deletion of this article isn't based on our own personal feelings on how the for-profit news media determines what constitutes newsworthy coverage. It seems this discussion is becoming an indictment of that. I think we all agree that this is yet another example of "news product" ala Natalee Holloway, as opposed to something legitimately worthy of our collective extended attentions, however, as long as the Wikipedia model predicates "validity" on the number of google hits or the number of reliable sources which can be trotted out in support, we would have a hard time arguing a lack of newsworthiness given that the coverage has been very extensive thusfar. Like anything else, interest in this will eventually die out, but that isn't a be-all threshold. I haven't seen fresh coverage of Jon Benet Ransey or the Hindenberg recently, however, they were both events in a place and time that received a great deal of coverage and because of it, whether they deserved it or not, they represent something "newsworthy," as would this murder. --LoverOfArt (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Nicolasdz (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep --Altmin (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • — Altmin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for the biography of every murder victim who happens to make the news. LaszloWalrus (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No one, I believe, is arguing that every murder victim's bio should be reposited in Wikipedia. If that's the basis of your argument, then you have zero argument. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
• Comment Prompted by a discussion at the Village Pump, where I am trying to forge a consensus of sorts, I read the Holloway article to see how to answer the questions about the differences between the articles and spotted a difference immediately: the Holloway article doesn't have an entire section devoted to who she was, what she did while she was alive or anything, except where it directly informs the event. This is in contrast to the Carson article, which spends the majority of the article talking about the life an memorial of the victim, and not about the event which is supposed to be notable. Consequently, editors favouring deletion are seeing this as a memorial page with little evidence of notability, but the page does not document the murder significantly. Can I take this opportunity to invite discussion at the Village pum, please [3]? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Another major difference is that the Holloway event occurred on an international level. High school student on senior trip to Aruba, allegedly abducted by a European. In contrast, Carson and Burk were just random murders at home. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That has to do with the notability of the incident, not the notability of the victim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, But ...: The above two or three posts are misguided (not Baseball Bugs, but the two or three posts above him). Regarding difference to Natalie Holloway and Eve Carson, etc. There are two very different issues at stake here: (1) deleting an article versus (2) improving the content of the article. This entire debate above is premised (by virtue of an AFD) that "this topic is not notable and therefore this article should be deleted". That is an entirely different matter than "let's keep the article and improve it by doing x, y, and z to it". So, the comparison between Holloway and Carson is not a valid comparison. Since you are comparing "how to improve and make an article better" (the very stuff that a Talk Page forum is used for) ... versus "getting rid of a non-notable article period" (which is why we are in an AFD debate). (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

• Comment First of all, I think that it's clear that despite major disagreements on this page, there will in some form exist an entry for Eve Carson. The level of strong consistent efforts that would need to be shown to forever exclude her from wikipedia alone demonstrates her notability. I see many delete voters who seem to be analyzing the facts of Carson's death itself and making a decision based on how simple the event is. Others seem to resent the presence of media sensationalism of certain deaths over others. One person even comments that “news-worthy isn’t noteworthy”, whatever that means. Notability has nothing to do with our interpretation of the facts of the case or if we believe that the media shouldn’t have covered it to this extent. The fact is, the case of her death has been covered in newspapers, TV and the internet, to the extent of being the top national story in many cases. The queston of Why?, simply doesn’t matter. Wikipedia doesn’t screen reputable 3rd party sources, rather, reputable 3rd party sources create wikipedia. Attempts to ignore these sources, which probably number in the thousands at this point, would be inappropriate and simply doesn’t make sense. The issue at hand is avoiding memorializing Carson and making an article that focuses on her extremely notable death, and not previous trivial elements on her life. Reports of the astounding media coverage surrounding her death itself would probably also be appropriate, as I imagine there will be news reporting on this aspect as well. Do you realize that a decision to remove information regarding this story would cause a controversy itself, with likely media reporting on Wikipedians deeming a major national news story as “non-notable”?Gwynand (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Gwynand makes some excellent points. Third-party others create the notability ... Wikipedia merely reports it. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
    • We're starting to get somewhere. How about main articles called "Natalee Holloway case" and "Eve Carson case", with standalone "Natalee Holloway" and "Eve Carson" redirecting to those case files? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree, although not sure about use of "case" as that seems to refer specifically to the law and order. I think Murder of Eve Carson works best. I think Holloway should be Dissapearance of Natalie Holloway, just like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. In either case, if a body were found then the possible naming could be changed.Gwynand (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Am I missing something here? Is this debate about (A) whether or not this event is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article ... or (B) what to name this article? Clearly, two different questions. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
          • You aren't missing something, because the answer is really yes to both. AFDs often include discussion on redirects, merges, and moves, so as not to be redundant. Some editors here (including myself) don't believe the article should be totally deleted, but rather renamed and its focus changed. It would be a waste of time and frankly deceiving to just simply agree for this to go through as a delete on notability guidelines, then the next day create a Murder of Eve Carson article. Rather, it should be discussed here. Gwynand (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, I understand all that. Much of the opposition (to keeping the article) centers on its (supposed) "non-notability". I am not seeing much above to indicate "Oh, yes, it will become notable as long as we change the title". That's all I'm saying. In other words, most of the delete-advocates above want it deleted, period, as non-notable. They could care less about the title --- but, rather, the content/event/murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
              • Maybe, but two things. First, I think a lot of the delete votes are responding to an article that is about Carson herself. Up until recently (I actually changed this myself) half of her article was a section called "Biography". I can see why people want to delete, they are looking at a trivial biography. The page was poorly put together and inadequate, and a lot of the info wasn't notable. Second, from the way this afd has gone I think there is virtually no chance of an admin closing with a consensus delete. In these cases without consensus, the article always stays. I'm looking for ways to improve the article, redefine what it is and hence clearly show the notable aspect of it. I might be getting ahead of myself, I admit. Gwynand (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep She seems sufficiently notable, since she has been in the news, because of the murder and her high profile within the UNC student body. As a testimonial, I read in a random news article that "Eve Carson" was murdered. "Who in the heck was Eve Carson?" I asked. Typed it into Wikipedia, and bam! Thanks for the info! -- Yekrats (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think it is a problem that the article as it stands insufficiently describes the event for which she is notable, and should defer all the unnecessary details about her life that do not relate to the murder itself. I am trying to work on a guideline with BaseballBugs and Joseph A. Spadaro at User:Fritzpoll/Victims of crime guideline to clarify this. In the meantime, I vote move to Murder of Eve Carson and rewrite to discuss the crime rather than the individual. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Mourning Sickness. This victim, nor this murder seem to be notable. Rather, the REACTION to them is notable. Rooot (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment/delete. For those attempting to keep this article for no other reason than because an article on Natalee Holloway (note the spelling) exists, that argument isn't very strong. Holloway has been missing for three years, and after more news coverage than any other missing person case, she still comes up in news reports. Eve Carson, while equally missing, has not received the same amount of coverage (which is one of the main aspects of notability to the Holloway case). Like Lauren Burk, this article should be deleted. It's a sad situation, but death alone doesn't makes somebody notable. - auburnpilot talk 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • You miss the point of the arguments that say "Eve Carson isn't notable, the murder is". Likewise, I say, "Natalee Holloway isn't notable, her disappearance is." The point being, the fact that it happens to be Natalee Holloway doesn't matter. What matters is the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, my God. Read what you just typed. "Someone who was killed three days ago has not accumulated the same amount of news coverage that someone who was killed three years ago has." Uhhhhhh ... ever take a Math class? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
    • I've taken many math classes. Have you read our civility policy? This has nothing to do with math, but the bottom line fact that this is not a notable case or murder. There's no other way to say it. - auburnpilot talk 21:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • First of all, why is asking a simple non-controversial question ("have you ever taken a math class?") uncivil? Second of all, it has everything to do with math, if we examine the premise of your prior post. You stated that a person whose case has been in the news for 3 days has not achieved the same amount of press coverage as a person whose case has been in the news for 3 years. That's nothing but simple math. Let's see ... 3 days versus ( 3 times 365 = ) 1095 days. Wow, do you mean to tell me that a person with 3 days of news coverage does not equal one with 1095 days of news coverage? Honest? Unreal. Furthermore, your bottom line "fact" is that this is not a notable case or murder. Well, then, I guess the debate is over? I mean, after all, Auburn pilot has issued her bottom line. Does the world stop spinning now, too? Do you even know what a "fact" is? Unreal. Get a grip. Or, at least, provide some meaningful input into the debate. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
        • By the way, I am offended by your implication that I am being uncivil ... which, I guess, makes you guilty of the very policy that you are quoting - no? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
          • • First of all, I'm male. Second, yes you are being quite uncivil. No, it does not make me uncivil. No, it's not about math. It's about the fact that somebody being shot in the head happens every day. Eve Carson, while unfortunate, is dead. That does not make her notable. Sorry if that's beyond the "grip" you've asked me to get. Not every death is deserving of a Wikipedia article; what you want is Wikinews. - auburnpilot talk 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
              • • Well, Auburn Pilot -- male or female -- you must be a very simple person ... one unable to comprehend anything other than simple statements. (1) So, you conclude that I am uncivil. No reason. You just rule on high that it's that way just because you say so. Oh, ok. (2) No, you are not uncivil. No reason. You just rule on high that it's that way just because you say so. Oh, ok. (3) It's not about math. No reason. You just rule on high that it's that way just because you say so. Oh, ok. (4) etc etc etc ... with all your statements. (5) She is not notable, just because you say so. (6) Not every death is notable, just because you say so. (7) In the prior post, it's a "fact" that this is not notable just because you say so. So, basically, all of your arguments go like this ... you make whatever statement you feel like making. You offer no reasons, rationale, or support. And you concllude with "it's that way, just because I say so". Hm. Interesting argument techniques. Why do I feel like I am arguing with a seven-year-old? You must be a very important person (are you perhaps George Bush or the Pope) if you feel that way. Or - more likley - you just feel that you are so important that your word is the be all and the end all of the debate. Unreal. I guess I acted like that when I was, ummmmmm, in third grade also. So, I hear ya. And, furthermore, you gave no substantive replies to any of my points whatsoever. Other than your ubiquitous "just because I say it's so" response. Wow, this debate will progress real, real, real far if we all did that - huh? "I'm right and you're wrong" ... "No, I'm right and you're wrong" ... back and forth 100 times. No reasons, no rationale ... just the statement that your way is correct. Seriously, get a grip. Learn how to participate meaningfully. You bottom line conclusion is not correct just because you say so. Hate to break that news to you. When you enter (developmental) adulthood, you shall see. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
                  • Adulthood? I'm just waiting to get the training wheels off my bike, and a new pacifier. My tricycle is in the shop, but I sure hope they get the dent out real soon...Gee golly. - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
                    • • Your clear lack of any substantive response on any adult level speaks for itself. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
                        • Joseph A. Spadaro, your reliance on sarcasm and descent into vitriol is not reflecting well on your arguments or you as an individual. WWGB (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
                          • I hardly rely on sarcasm or descend into vitriol. I guess I assumed that if people engage in argument, they actually have a clue about how to argue. How mistaken I was, clearly. Making a statement as your conclusion simply because you made the statement does not render it a conclusion. In baby English ... something isn't so just because you say that it is so. If people have no clue how to present a cogent point (other than the kindergarten tantrum throwing "it is because I say so") ... then they oughtn't be participating in making "points". If they can't meaningfully contribute, they should not contribute. I can type a lot of meaningless drivel too, you know. I passed that phase at age 7 or so, however. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC))
              • It doesn't happen to college class presidents every day, and doesn't get significant media coverage every day. She's more notable as an individual than is Natalee Holloway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While it is sad, and has effected that community. I don't think that she is notable, nor was her death. Being murdered is not really a claim to notability. While I have sympathy for her friends and family. I don't think she should have a Wikipedia article. ScurvyD (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep this article, at least for now, until more turns up. Maybe merge it with a more general article on school shootings and such later on but I think an AfD notice might just be uncalled for right now. Obviously, anyone who is here right now has probably searched for her, and thus wanted information on the subject. 71.58.60.134 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC) - Previous commend was by me, I forgot to login first RevenantPrime (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • • Comment - I would like to point out that I think the massive media attention garnered by this case, and the fact that WP:NOTPAPER, we shouldn't be worried about giving a few kilobytes of space here. I don't think this page should be a full fledged biography commemorating her every action, but a simple description of the murder is notable. RevenantPrime (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. She is notable as the subject of intense media coverage over a protracted period of time and as the victim of a college shooting, which is its own phenomenon of late. Anyone wishing to study college violence and how the media has covered it would need to consider this individual's murder in the big picture. Mooveeguy (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per notability and verfiability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia and Natalee Holloway and other trivial information is listed in here. If you look at the headlines that have been generated, this is news and as such probably deserves a space in this "encyclopedia". Was her life notable, probably not as much as some entries but more so than others. My question has more to do with the harm there is in having this entry. Is this not a place for information? If so is this not information? It has attracted national attention so it would seem that while wikipedia may be debating if this is news worthy, the real news media has already determined it is news worthy. The other issue is simply does not wikipedia want to be more encompassing than the other encyclopedias? If so this should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.217.24 (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Very few of the "Keep"ers have addressed WP:BIO1E: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." (While noting that it says "may be unwarranted" not "is unwarranted.") Sbowers3 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Eve was the student body president and her contributions before her death were legion. The issue you are proposing was addressed many times. EgraS (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Death is very notable, and achievements in life and coverage of life both before and after death warrant the article being under her name. For what its worth, examples of articles mentioning her published in papers other than the campus paper (all BEFORE her murder) include [4] [5] [6] [7] and [8]. This means that reliable sources cover her in far more situations than her death. Dozens if not hundreds of more citations can be found in the campus newspaper, which is reliable (if not third-party). Her death has received major national news media attention, notice in the congressional record [9], etc. -- and most of these stories discussed her death but also the many achievements of her life. The same should be true of the article. --SecretAgent (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of those stories would count as more than trivial, passing coverage of just her name. None of them are about Eve Carson, but rather only mention her name as having something to do with some other event. Several are just about her voting on a grading change at the university. 24.124.109.67 (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Retain for now. If this is still all over the media in a month, keep it for good. If it's gone, delete it then. Cougar Draven (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete A one time story, this is not comparable to the Natalee Holloway case that dragged on and on and generated far more public interest. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Natalie Holloway herself is less notable than Eve Carson is. Hence the need to make these kinds of articles more like case files. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• CommentFor the information of editors, the Natalee Holloway article (recently promoted to GA) has survived three AfD debates, two of them in the last few months, and while we do not vote here, an overwhelming majority of editors voted to keep, to such an extent that the last AfD was stopped after only a few hours under WP:SNOW. I don't have a preference here, but I think clearer guidance on notability might be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that calling the article "Natalee Holloway" vs. "Natalee Holloway disappearance" is mere semantics. Maybe so, in which case the Carson and Burk articles could remain named as they are, but with more emphasis on the cases and less on the biographical. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another Comment I'm still seeing a lot of WP:ONEEVENT delete arguments being made, so I'd just like to reiterate that Wikipedia is chock-full of people who are notable for only one event; those I previously mentioned, Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Mark David Chapman, Thich Quang Duc, plus Sirhan Sirhan, Günter Parche, Gavrilo Princip, John Hinckley, Jr., you could go on and on. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, but rather pointing out that having a policy that says that we shouldn't have articles for people notable for only one event is clearly flawed. faithless (^speak) 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  The extensive media coverage of Eve Carson in multiple reliable sources cited in Eve_Carson#Notes and Eve_Carson#External_links clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose

  Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

  Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. WP:NOT#NEWS has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. Whatever the merits of ever raising WP:NOT#NEWS in any deletion discussion without claiming serious WP:BLP issues^[1], WP:NOT#NEWS clearly does not furnish a valid rationale for deletion here. Indeed, WP:NOT#NEWS expressly states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial"; the massive media coverage of Eve Carson cited in Eve_Carson#Notes and Eve_Carson#External_links would therefore suggest that this person is, indeed, an "encyclopedic subject". WP:BLP1E arguments do not support deletion, since the policy expressly advises us to "Cover the event, not the person": as we presently have no article on the Death of Eva Carson, it would be far more efficient to move this article to a page title descriptive of the event in question, and adjust the style of the writing where appropriate, than to write a completely new article relating to the event. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence.

1. ^ WP:NOT#NEWS was added to WP:NOT during the controversy surrounding the events considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, admonishes editors to "[keep] in mind the harm our work might cause", and advises that "While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." The extent to which WP:NOT#NEWS ever applies to any articles other than biographies of living persons that present a substantial risk of causing serious embarrassment, humiliation, or other harm to their subjects is therefore doubtful. Archetypical of the sort of article that clearly qualifies for deletion under WP#NOT:NEWS would be a biography of a person whose sole claim to notability is an arrest for driving while intoxicated, where the event was only covered in two local newspapers.

John254 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Murder of Eve Carson and make the article focus more on the murder and less on her life. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Anyone who has 2000+ people attend wakes and funeral services is notable. She was not just the innocent victim of a crime. She was student body president, active in the community etc. If there is not consensus to keep the article, maybe a merge into University of North Carolina would be acceptable. Truthanado (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A lot of those folks went because they were each given a shiny new quarter by wikipedia editors, to make the subject appear to be notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Article should be deleted. Subject of article not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.237.139 (talk • contribs)
• Delete and transwiki anything newsworthy to wikinews. Deletion should be without prejudice, but recreation would require significant coverage of this as more than a single newsworthy event, no matter how intricate or sensationalized things might get on the news (it is the news, you know how they do it). If this event becomes more than news . Note that "this is a great example of missing white woman syndrome" is total WP:OR, and that is not a justifiable reason for keeping it (I won a spelling bee, I was even in the news, and it is a great example of winning a spelling bee, that doesn't mean I get an article). If anything, MWWS is an indication that she is not notable, despite the disproportionate coverage she receives in news media. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not necessarily her that's notable, it's the story. "Missing white woman" is OR unless it can be cited. But I say again that this subject, as a person is more notable than Natalee Holloway. The Holloway story is more notable than this one just because of the massive media attention it got for awhile. But both of these stories are national media stories and thus are both notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep this page for now. It's not hurting anything and Wikipedia probably has plenty of disc storage space.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• • If it's decided to delete this article, then we also need to delete other non-notable people such as Jessica Lunsford, Natalie Holloway (as mentioned previously), and Jessica McClure. The point is that this story made national news and has been in the news for over a week. Encyclopedias, like Britannnica, generally do not cover events such as this. But this isn't a bound book that you will find in your grandfather's basement. Wikipedia has grown to be an encyclopedia of events in addition to wars, countries, and three-toed sloths. Eve Carson wasn't just some random college student. Outside of the basketball team, she's probably the most recognized and dare I say important student at UNC. Wallstreethotrod (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep clearly notable. Frankly its a no-brainer, this has been covered extensively by the media justified or no, which alone meets notability guideline.D-rew (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I have MSNBC on right now and there is some kind of breaking news being reported regarding the case. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It is similiar to history of college students and intern persons who worked for US government that are recorded as important part of America's violence. I do hope this suspect deserve to be on a death pentaly because I do not like that people who committed murder for money or other valuables are enough to be demons without real common senses and they deserved to be destroyed. Killing her for money is a demonic way so I think that she deserved to be angelic memorial article like Laci Peterson who was murdered with a baby by her husband, Scott that the world has not heard. Wikipedians who want to delete this articles should be ashamed on them for making fools including one who mentioned Britannic Encyclopedia. Britannic Encyclopedia was designed for intelligent people, Wikipedia is general online encyclopedia. Britannic will not display most famous Elvis Presley in articles so shut-up. Cculber007 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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.