Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Nicole Ghawi

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect to 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nicole Ghawi

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

Notable for one event, not a memorial. Recommend deletion or merge with 2012 Aurora shooting. Refs include several reliable sources, but also quite a few by the foundation named for her, a company employing her mother, social media sites, and blogs. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as the reasonable solution. Not really appropriate for a separate article Precedent has been that we do not normally keep these articles. Once upon a time, I would argue otherwise, but I've come to agree with what I think is the general view, (I point out , though, that "no more notable than the others is a classic non-argument, because it could equally well be used to support making all of them.) DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless notability as a sportscaster can be established. People become notable for their achievements. Her death was not her doing, nor was her funeral, this foundation or the donation thing. Being the first named victim in the press is about as notable as being first alphabetically. There is nothing I can see here worth merging that isn't already in the shooting article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Right now all of the coverage of Ghawi is in relation to the shooting. As far as her sportscaster work goes, I don't see any coverage of her work that isn't mentioned along with Ghawi's death by shooting. It looks like for the most part, her work was predominantly along the lines of internships as part of her degree program. While it's incredibly sad that she was shot and it's possible that somewhere in the future she might have books written about her as was done with some of the victims from other horrendous acts against people, but right now Ghawi just doesn't have any notability outside of the shooting. I have no problem with someone wanting to keep a copy of the article in their userspace, but I do want to stress that this will have to go through and have a little of the memorial-speak taken out of it to be more encyclopedic and neutral. Right now it reads like an obituary/memorial than an article, and that's aside from the point of neutrality.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2012 Aurora shooting#Victims Whats there to merge that is notable and stands out other than her death? This is a case of a Low profile person and fails per WP:BIO1E. A likely search term here but I do not see anything useful to the 2012 Aurora shooting article worth merging. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mind the ref and external links these are Notable sources that make her somehow more notable then the others! --Fox2k11 (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, she's simply more visible than others at this point in time because she was shot first. That she was also an attractive woman doesn't hurt either. The coverage right now doesn't really show that she's reached that level of notability to where she'd be considered notable outside of the shooting. Sometimes people do get notability outside of the one event they're best known for, but it takes an awful lot to accomplish this. Will she ever achieve it? Maybe. Maybe not. But we can't keep an article around because she's one of a handful of people that have received most of the coverage. I say that we redirect for now and if there are still articles, books, or whatnot being written about her months or years down the line, then an article can be re-created. It's just that despite her getting slightly more attention, she's just not independently notable outside of the shooting. The shooting is still fairly recent and there's just no depth of coverage to prove that she's really going to be notable outside of all of this. It's too soon to claim notability for her and I really feel that right now if it were to be kept, it'd be for sentimental memorial type reasons than any actual passing notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I Agree I did not write it as a memorial but obviously it looks like one but i did not write the article because of her coverage in the news more because I assumed she gained notability by the Actions from other notable Sources on behalf of her name however I'll keep an eye on that! --Fox2k11 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the scholarships and honorary degrees, those only indicate that she is considered a notable person by those schools and organizations, because she was involved with them. My town named the arena after a local coach who, despite doing much good in the area, is completely unknown by virtually everyone on Earth. Many, many other things are named after many more people like him and this woman, across the world. When we say she isn't notable, we're not saying she wasn't important. Just that (like almost everyone of us) almost nobody knew who she was, until an event that would have happened if she was there or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Nicole_Ghawi&oldid=1143405877"