Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 jail break in Clovis, New Mexico


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. While the majority of sources are from the Clovis local paper there are still 5 full-length AP articles and an AMW segment.. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :D  02:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 jail break in Clovis, New Mexico

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. And a local paper at that. Despite large numbers of sources, they're almost all the local newspaper or local TV station. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete blatant WP:NOT. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article absolutely should NOT be deleted. Mainstream media is considered a reliable source and a secondary source. This jail break may not have been the most well-known news story, but it was widely covered in mainstream media in a considerable amount of detail. The Clovis News Journal articles are of course the most commonly cited because they have the most detail. As near as I can tell, this meets the notability guidelines, including "significant coverage," "reliable," "sources," "independent of the subject" and "presumed." Furthermore, I've put a lot of work into this article ever since this jail break occurred. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:EFFORT is not a reason for keeping. it also has not had wide coverage. most of the references are from one source, the Clovis News Journal.Michellecrisp (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're of course right that the amount of work isn't a reason for keeping. But you're wrong in saying it has not had wide coverage. Most of the recent updates have been from local news sources, yes, but the prison break itself was reported by national publications and wire services, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press. Not to mention that America's Most Wanted found the jail break notable enough to dedicate an episode to it. In general, the Clovis news sources were cited over those national publications because they had more details, which only makes sense given their proximity to the incident. I think the notability arguments still stands. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It still is a news event. and WP:NOT says Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. I don't think this is historically notable above any other jail break. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not say that AMW devoted an entire episode, just to one segment of the show.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand that perspective, but at the same time, we're not talking about an article about a local convenience store being robbed here. We're talking about eight men, all accused of violent crimes, breaking out a prison, including one convicted murderer still at large. Its leading to lasting changes in New Mexico. It may not be on the same level as Obama winning the presidency, but don't you think its still a notable story? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The Clovis newspaper apparently thought it was a big story, delete per the policy WP:NOT and the essay WP:NOTNEWS which predated the policy. Edison (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the type of article WP:NOT is meant to prevent. A quote from that page: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This jail break is far more notable. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:GNG which says: "Sources,defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." well if you look beyond Clovis news journal which is at least 95% of the sources, the depth of coverage from multiple sources is very very limited and thus fails WP:GNG. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree with your interpretation. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." To me this means some articles require a large number of different secondary sources, whereas others do not, depending the nature of the article. In this case, the Clovis News Journal is providing the most details about this incident, so given the nature of the article, it is the most commonly cited secondary source. It doesn't mean the article isn't notable. (It also says "Multiple sources are generally preferred," not that they are REQUIRED.) I think what this guideline mandates is the use of secondary sources and, so far, nobody is disputing that these sources fit that criteria. The amount of sources, and the number of different sources, will vary from article to article according to this guideline. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Preferred not required...but a variety of sources pushes the case for notability. The current article makes it look as big news for Clovis but nowhere else. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, that means the article meets the "Sources" standard of the WP:GNG, and I would argue it meets the other standards as well. And I don't think it's fair to dismiss this as simply a story of local interest to Clovis simply because most of the sources come from there. It's not as if this is a local Clovis store robbery or the passing of a city ordinance or budget or something like that. This is a prison break in which convicted murderers escaped; an incident that entities ranging from The New York Times and the AP to the America's Most Wanted show found notable enough to cover. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is the NY times reference? At least 2 of the AP references are actually published in none other than the Clovis News Journal, seems like other media didn't want to pick up the story. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The NY Times included it in their National Briefing here. Obviously, it's only a brief, but the New York Times is a national paper, and even in their briefs they would only include something of national interest and notability; if they determined this story is so notable, I don't see how we can rule otherwise. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that based on the identical AP story that Clovis News Journal used? and secondly one mention in NY times doesn't make something notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Clovis News Journal did its own reporting. And I'm not arguing that the entire notability of this article hinges on whether it was mentioned in the New York Times, but I think the fact that the New York Times found it notable enough to include adds weight to the rest of my argument. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes but there are 2 "AP" referenced citations that were actually published in Clovis News Journal as well. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly mean no disrespect here, but I'm not sure how that relates to a notability argument? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Depth of coverage is a key part of notability. It has very little coverage outside the Clovis news journal. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Depth of coverage is not defined by having a large number of varying sources. It says "Multiple sources are generally preferred." But it doesn't say they are necessary. The guideline specifically says the number of reliable sources varies depending on the nature of the event. That means a story or incident can be notable but, given the nature of it, the majority of information can come from a single, acceptable secondary source. In this case, the Clovis News Journal. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I also refer to WP:NOBJ Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. This article is primarily based on a short burst of news reports in Sept/Oct 2008. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This argument has already been addressed. The small section of WP:NOBJ you are citing is actually referring back to NOT. As I said before, the objective of that is to prevent Wikipedia articles on "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism." This article is far more notable than that. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOBJ is still policy and applies here, you can't deny that this article is primarily based on a short burst of news reports. If it was a short burst from several sources then I would reconsider. So far you are the only one to vote for keep, so I prefer to wait and see what others say. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports" to make it notable. That doesn't mean the fact that much of the information comes from news reports makes it ineligible. It just means its needs more to it than that to be considered notable. In this case, I believe there is more to it. What about the fact that this nation's newspaper of record found it notable enough to notify the world about? Or the fact that the crime was so notable that America's Most Wanted got involved? Besides, doesn't the incident itself seem notable to you? Here we have violent criminals and convicted murders escaping from a prison with very little planning. This is not only going to result in changes at that single prison, and all indications are this will serve as a model throughout New Mexico and beyond as to what can happen as a direct result poor oversight, coordination and planning at a prison. Sure, it's based largely on a short burst of news reports at the moment (mostly because a short amount of time has passed so far). But there is more to it than that, and therefore WP:NOBJ alone doesn't disqualify it. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — (edit conflict) lacks significant coverage through reliable secondary sources. I hate to be blunt, but the reason to keep smacks of recentism — which tries to inflate the importance of an incident here on Wikipedia than it has been in the real world. MuZemike  ( talk ) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Recentism indicates the article is overblown in an attempt to regard the incident with more long-term historical perspective than it actually has. What exactly in this article attempts overplays the significance of the incident? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment also fails proposed policy Notability_(criminal_acts). Michellecrisp (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How so? -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple, read the text box A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The AP and New York Times are pretty widely considered news organizations and publications of national and global scope, so the fact that they've addressed them indicates this incident fits that criteria, even if the blunt of information comes from the Clovis News Journal since they have the most details and best information possible for the article. America's Most Wanted, too, is national in scope; had I access to the episode, a large portion of my Clovis Journal citations could have gone to that. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You forgot significant coverage, one article from NY times is not significant coverage. Clovis news journal is not national. also please note:  it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope I do wonder why you're so strongly defending this article...WP:OWN. Michellecrisp (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As do I wonder why you're so strongly fighting it. I think your comments are intelligent and I can understand where you're coming from, I just feel that WP:NOT is being twisted here. I think the spirit of the policy is meant to prevent articles on things like "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," as I said before. To me, that means preventing articles like 2008 Robbery of Frank's Mom and Pop Video Rental Store in Anytown, USA, not a prison break in which murderers and violent criminals escaped from a prison and, at least briefly, earned some national attention. But I don't know, maybe I'm fighting a losing battle here. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to be a fairly legitimate article about a notable jail break, I'd say we should err on the side of caution and keep the article.Pstanton 07:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Someone seems to have confused Wikipedia with a newspaper!  One problem though, we're WP:NOT a newspaper.  JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT states "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source." This article isn't first-hand reporting or original research, it's based on secondary sources. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. Now go read WP:NOTNEWS.  JBsupreme (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times I can address WP:NOTNEWS without sounding redundant. (See above). But if you have any specific part of it you'd like for me to respond to again, let me know. --- Hunter Kahn (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. This is local interest news story. Notability asserted through wider impact is speculative at best. Long term reforms beyond the this particular prison might establish notability if and when they happen . Until then, this is a non-notable crime. • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If America's Most Wanted dedicates an entire episode to the event, it transcends the stamp of local news event for me. Regardless, if it is deemed the article cannot stand on its own, it can be merged into an article on the prison itself. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Unless this event has some wider, lasting significance, it's just a local news story.--Boffob (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to article about the Curry County Detention Center. Although the escape of 8 inmates is a large number as jailbreaks go, escapes from jail are not that rare.  According  to one source, in 2001 there were 5,874 escapes in the United States alone .  In this case, the escape seems not to have made news outside the immediate area, although its feature on AMW is a sign of notability.  However, this is an overly-detailed article about the details of cutting a hole in a roof of the county detention center, the subsequent manhunt and recaptures, and -- worst of all-- separate paragraphs about each of the escapees.  While I don't think that the intent was to elevate these would-be Papillons to folk hero status, that's the effect.  Mandsford (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Is not subject to NOTNEWS since received coverage over multiple months. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * over 95% of the citations are from September and August. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And they're mostly to the Clovis News Journal Mandsford (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two months is a lot of time more than a news cycle. And not all of them are in that time period. There are multiple in October. And while many of the articles are from the local paper it is a reliable source and thus that isn't relevant (even aside from the fact that many of them are from other sources). None of this is a reason to claim that NOTNEWS applies when it does not. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Many' are from a local newspaper? Almost every single one is from the same local newspaper. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and some are not. Including again a full episode of a major national television show. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeating false information does not make it true. It was not a full episode, it was one segment.   Little Red Riding Hood  talk  00:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification. In any event, a segment on a major national television show still serious undermines the claim that this is some sort of little news event. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a local news story and for me does not sit right as a permanent entry in a bona-fide global encyclopaedia. With so many references and so much detail, a casual read may give an exaggerated importance of the event.  But most are from a local newspaper and a single reporter.  That noted journal of record Wikinews doesn't even give it a mention.  The author here has gone to a lot of work, so perhaps it could be transwikied there.  –Moondyne 07:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't timely so it can't go to wikinews. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper--and a local newspaper at that. The only evidence for wider coverage has been a couple of brief wire-service despatches, and that's not 'national' coverage by any real meaning of the term. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I don't think that this was notable enough to merit its own article, I think that some of the information can be merged elsewhere, since it's part of the history of Curry County, New Mexico. I can appreciate the author's frustrations.  He worked very hard on the article, taking time to research earlier news reports about the escapees and their crimes, and I appreciate that he sourced all of the facts.  Ironically, the documentation of the Clovis sources underscored the paucity of significant coverage outside of the area.  It was a well-written article, but it was about a story that most of us felt was not of enough historical or national significance to have its own page.  Again, some of the information could continue to exist on other pages.  Best wishes to the author. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if, as a compromise, a) removing the histories of the escapees and b) removing some citations from the Clovis News Journal and adding them from the America's Most Wanted source would make this article worth keeping? I can see why people would think the escapees section is a little much, and removing that would take out 18 of the local Clovis citations alone. Replacing some of the others with the AMW or another national source would also indicate better that the story captured some national attention and has merit in that way? If a majority felt this would work, I'd do it. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had debated whether to do a proposed, subject-to-reversion edit just to see how much remained if all of the Clovis-sourced facts were taken out, leaving only the wire service and AMW stuff. Eight men out is pretty significant as far as jail escapes go, and I think that the subject may be more notable than we've been inferring.  You won't need approval by anyone, much less a majority, to try that route.  I can understand concerns about whether it would be wasted effort, but I don't think it would require that much effort (look how much time we've spent debating).  Usually, if changes are in progress, the admin holds off on a ruling.  If you want to attempt changes, I'll be the first to say let's reconsider. Mandsford (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As per this discussion, I made an intial change that eliminated the "Histories of Escapees" section altogether; I do agree with some statements here that that section was a bit overblown and weighed down in local details. (I also made sure the article still makes sense with that info not included). I plan to go through the article and replace some of the local references with state and national references, and if I can get my hands on it, find a copy of the AMW segment for citation purposes. (I've since learned the jailbreak was featured, or at least mentioned, in another AMW episode about a week or two ago.) As I make some of those citation changes, I'll also comb through the article and see if there are any other sections that get bogged down in local stuff and remove that as well. Obviously, this is going to take some time, especially since it's the holidays right now, but I think this will be much more preferable to reducing the article to a few paragraphs in an article about the jail, or to removing the article altogether. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:24, 13 December 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.