Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecily McMillan


 * 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. Whether this article should be moved to Trial of Cecily McMillan is a topic for the talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Cecily McMillan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOTE; also WP:ONEEVENT. M. Caecilius (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Does WP:ONEEVENT really apply where the article subject has sought attention for herself by giving media interviews about the event for which she is allegedly notable? Scratching my head on that one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 17:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand this comment. Does this imply that the subject is really non-notable and only became the subject of media coverage through efforts at media manipulation? Or that giving media interviews on the same case somehow takes an individual to notability beyond the case itself? Scratching my head too on your comment. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a case of some guy showing up in the police blotter because he blew a DUI or propositioned an undercover cop. Should be pretty obvious that this is not a "person is arrested, shows up in newspaper" scenario.  She is notable because of the public debate surrounding her case.  We have a super super long article on Mumia Abu-Jamal, and all he did was murder a cop, right?


 * Heck... the leading example of BLP1E people who have their own articles is about some poor sap who accidentally caught an in-play baseball pitched by the crappiest team in history. By contrast, this young woman is trying her own case in the media and attempting to brand herself as some sort of anti-"brutality" crusader in the public eye.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is completely absurd to compare McMillan and Abu-Jamal at this point, since Abu-Jamal's long-term notability is testified to by sustained media coverage and repeated reference in reliable sources even after his case left the news cycle. To envision that McMillan's case would have similar impact is patently consulting the WP:CRYSTALBALL.


 * Honestly, looking at the magnitude of media coverage and the nature that they are routine coverages of an interesting ongoing court case, there is no reason why we can't make McMillan's case a section in Occupy Wall Street. If there shall arise in the future a cult following of hers which elevates her to icon status like Abu-Jamal, as you seem to be convinced there will be, then I shall have little problem with a Wikipedia page. M. Caecilius (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You seem to be changing the subject. I didn't say she was as notable as Abu-Jamal.  I said that we don't dismiss article subjects simply because all they have done is commit a crime and be convicted of it.  In any event it would seem McMillan is already notable enough for her own article, due to the public debate surrounding her arrest and conviction. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable criminal. jni (delete)...just not interested 17:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think "non-notable criminal" will wash. The case has recieved coverage outside the United States. Whether this is worth a stand-alone article is another matter. She has yet to be setanced & if sent to jail there will doubtless be an appeal, so there will be more coverage. At very least this should be merged to Occupy Wall StreetTheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Not only is McMillian's case being discussed prominently by national voices which focus only on "notable" issues (e.g. John Stewart: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/daily-show-takes-on-financial-crisis-cases), simple searches uncover numerous international publications covering the case.  It is notable because it is the first case brought against a member of OWS, which was notable as well.  One of the main underlying issues connected with OWS was the use of law as a tool to quiet the voices of would-be protesters.  This case is apropos of that issue --Grahammorehead (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is, unfortunately, often the case in deletion discussions, that some editor would wholly ignore all efforts by the nominator in citing relevant guidelines, such as WP:ONEEVENT. I will also overlook the risible statement that John Stewart "focuses only on 'notable' issues", and also the fact that the link which is furnished provide nothing but a one-line reference to the news that Ms McMillan was arrested, and not even to Ms McMillan herself. Still, there is zero argument given on whether the subject has enough long-term notability to warrant coverage outside of the one event of her arrest. The "numerous international publications", as is noted, cover this one case, bringing the article wholly within the auspices of the guideline on individuals notable for only one event. Why such zealous crusading is directed at keeping this article standalone, instead of providing coverage on the Occupy Wall Street movement, I will never understand. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of framing Occupy Wall Street in legal history, this is an interesting and historical case and I think Cecily's case will stand the test of history. Also, it has been written about by most major American News publications at this point so it already counts as much more relevant than many other Wikipedia articles. OR drohowa (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are making a WP:CRYSTALBALL argument here about assumed future notability. Also WP:CRIME is pretty clear about this matter: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. Assaulting a police officer is quite common and ordinary crime so any news reporting it is WP:DOGBITESMAN, unless somehow connected to larger topic like Occupy movement in this case, where this otherwise routine news coverage should be merged. jni (delete)...just not interested 06:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see my comment above. This is clearly not the type of case envisioned by WP:CRIME.  It also clearly falls under "Perpetrator" scenario #2 in the list of exceptions, namely that the motivation for the crime is unusual and has been considered noteworthy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Have you looked into the WP:CRYSTALBALL and seen that the case shall have (per WP:CRIME, perpetrator #2)
 * sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
 * Given that current coverage is pretty much contemporaneous (since the case is still in trial and all the news reports stem from that), I'm not sure how you have made such a remarkable assertion about the future without consulting the proverbial crystal ball. M. Caecilius (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the hostility and sarcasm are helping things. I also wonder whether you've ever actually read WP:CRYSTALBALL, or do you just name-drop WP policies that sound catchy?  Could you direct me to some language that suggests that guideline is relevant in some way? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)

(talk) (contribs) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an absurd response. All I'm saying is that if you think that the person herself named in the article satisfies WP:CRIME, then you are necessarily making a prediction about the person's long-term notability on the same level as other criminal suspects which we have articles for, and this is a prediction that you must realize not all editors share. That is exactly the purpose of the project guideline. M. Caecilius (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Absurd response"? If you have any objections that are directly supported by actual WP policy and not just your unstructured feelings about stuff, please let us all know now.  And it wouldn't hurt to reference some actual policy language. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Motivation for the alleged crime is certainly of most ordinary kind. Left-wing (and right-wing and green-wing and almost every other party) activists and demonstrators have physically assulted police perhaps hundreds of thousands of times during past century in almost every country of this planet. The Occupation movement and their motivations are not special in any way. Violent altercation with the police like McMahon murders are independently notable, just punching a random police officer to face by some non-notable person is WP:DOGBITESMAN that happens daily in every major city. jni (delete)...just not interested 05:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * KEEP:I strongly agree with User:Factchecker_atyourservice when they say, "This is clearly not the type of case envisioned by WP:CRIME. It also clearly falls under "Perpetrator" scenario #2 in the list of exceptions, namely that the motivation for the crime is unusual and has been considered noteworthy," and strongly disagree with User:jni. We can not judge notability by the size of the altercation but by the impact of the situation and series of events on the media, its coverage on news, and its referential qualities. The Cecily McMillan case stands out as one of the most covered legal cases coming out of Occupy Wall Street, a moment in political history that was covered by almost every major and minor publication in the U.S. and beyond. The article has already reached notability because it has been written about in most major U.S. publications. This is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL claim. The notability of this article has already been sedimented by its far-ranging coverage. And to answer questions about why this article can't be merged with the Occupy Article- one of the reasons we have bio articles is to create referential sources for researchers looking up names in the media/history. I think this article serves this purpose. Beyond that, the trial and details of the case have been covered as a separate event and situation than the Occupy Wall Street events, which ended last year. The focus has been on the trial, and less on Occupy, and that is one of the many reasons it should be its own article.OR drohowa (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to JNI: political protest is hardly an ordinary motivation for a crime of violence. The fact that you can find numerous examples of it really only shows that the world is a very large place filled with billions of people. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (see my revised opinion below in the relisted conversation) There are currently 1660 news articles. How is that not evidence of notability. You don't need to look into a WP:CRYSTALBALL to see that. Furthermore, we need to turn down the political rhetoric: it is clear that different editors have different viewpoints on OWS; this is besides the point. I would in no way argue that the Cliven Bundy situation wasn't notable: it is hugely notable. If we need to move Cecily McMillian from Cecily McMillan to Cecily McMillan trial then so be it. That is fine. But this is bigger than should be folded back into one OWS page.--Theredproject (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Theredproject. Subject's notability is without question. Moving the entry to Cecily McMillan trial seems like a good solution. --Failedprojects (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Theredproject and Failedprojects. Subject's notability is without question; the trial appears in not only in domestic but but also international news, and touches on not only OWS but also important on-going conversations around police brutality and violence against women.--Siankevans (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While I would have preferred moving the content into Occupy Wall Street, if the discussion is closed as keep or no consensus, I consent to this as the best compromise. I therefore move that, if the AfD is not closed as delete, I would rename the page to "Trial of Cecily McMillan" or something similar, if we can reach agreement on that. M. Caecilius (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin. Accounts
 * did not stumble into this AfD by accident and they have a shared editing history relating to a certain gender-POV Wikipedia meetup. The fact that both Failedprojects and Siankevans decided to do their first edit in over two months to this AfD page within few minutes of each other is clear indication that they received an off-wiki invitation to do so. Since they both have less than ten edits to main encyclopedia, it looks like they could be WP:NOTHERE single-purpose accounts. Suggest discarding their keep votes and monitoring sockpuppet/meatpuppet issues carefully here. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And, who wrote some of the unsigned passages above, seems to be also associated with the Meetup/ArtAndFeminism_2014 crew just like the above three accounts. This AfD would need uninvolved editors. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how being involved in the Meetup/ArtAndFeminism_2014 disqualifies me from being able to comment on this page. The article is not about topics in art and feminism. Just because I like to write articles about women doesn't mean I should be disqualified in an AfD involving a woman. OR drohowa (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, I see no problem with a group of editors that have organized IRL meetups together to notify each other of an AfD related to a topic of interest to everyone and then each contribute. AfDs are open to anyone regardless of who has already spoken- isn't that the point? Further, plenty of groups already do this re: WikiProjects. I have no reason to believe that myself or the other 3 editors is out of line here. Thanks. OR drohowa (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course you can comment here, I just pointed out that you have edited a similar set of pages than the other three users, and perhaps share a same POV. It is not a random accident that four users from a marginal Wikiproject/meetup/organization/association, that most wikipedians have never heard about, come here within timespan of few hours. The closing admin can then evaluate that information I provided and weight it whatever way she thinks is appropriate. What you and your associates have done is in fact prohibited. Please read WP:MEAT to understand how this can affect AfD closure. Note that I did not exactly group you with the other accounts as you have way more edits so labeling you as potential single-purpose user would have been unfair and incorrect. (But please remember to sign your comments with four tildes: ~ .) jni (delete)...just not interested 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with OR drohowa that a group of editors that have organized IRL meetups together to notify each other of an AfD related to a topic of interest to everyone and then each contribute. Take a look at Meat_puppetry a little closer: "What is not meatpuppetry: Communicating outside of Wikipedia with other editors." --Theredproject (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, jni, please consider the guidelines on Sock_puppetry which states that "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." Which is exactly what happened.--Theredproject (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that one of these users has total of three edits to main encyclopedia and other total seven, they triggered my sockpuppet alarm. For all I or any other outside observer can tell, they both could be just sockpuppet accounts operated by you. For purposes of communicating outside of Wikipedia with other editors, editors with minimal to non-existent participation to actual encyclopedia project risk being identified as meatpuppets. After all the difference between WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS is not that great. What you and your friends (or sockpuppets) are doing is vote stacking in this AfD and it is clear that the closing admin should compensate for that. jni (delete)...just not interested 06:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that I was not aware of WP:CANVASS and did notify several other editors about this AfD because I thought they might be interested. Now that I understand the policy, I realize my err here. That said, I am not sure I wholly agree with WP:CANVASS as in this case, I think the other editors were genuinely interested in the article and I believe that they did and can thoughtfully reasonably contribute to the conversation and I did not ask them to take a particular side. Thanks all. Let's keep this friendly and thoughtful- now back to the article.. OR drohowa (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, jni, please consider the guidelines on Sock_puppetry which states that "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." Which is exactly what happened.--Theredproject (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that one of these users has total of three edits to main encyclopedia and other total seven, they triggered my sockpuppet alarm. For all I or any other outside observer can tell, they both could be just sockpuppet accounts operated by you. For purposes of communicating outside of Wikipedia with other editors, editors with minimal to non-existent participation to actual encyclopedia project risk being identified as meatpuppets. After all the difference between WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS is not that great. What you and your friends (or sockpuppets) are doing is vote stacking in this AfD and it is clear that the closing admin should compensate for that. jni (delete)...just not interested 06:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to say that I was not aware of WP:CANVASS and did notify several other editors about this AfD because I thought they might be interested. Now that I understand the policy, I realize my err here. That said, I am not sure I wholly agree with WP:CANVASS as in this case, I think the other editors were genuinely interested in the article and I believe that they did and can thoughtfully reasonably contribute to the conversation and I did not ask them to take a particular side. Thanks all. Let's keep this friendly and thoughtful- now back to the article.. OR drohowa (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A few days in to this evolving deletion campaign, I still have yet to hear anything that sounds like a serious objection rooted in policy. In fact the most substantial thing on this page is some OMG DRAMA about alleged sockpuppets. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The nomination is a serious objection rooted in policy. Just because you disagree does not mean other editors did not make your opposite view seriously. Let's tone down the offensive rhetoric which you sustained throughout and maybe learn how to make a point without demeaning the contribution of other editors. M. Caecilius (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have so far responded to my dry policy arguments with exasperation and sarcasm. You have questioned the sincerity and motivations of other editors.  Now you're accusing me of dishing out "offensive rhetoric" and "demeaning the contributions of other editors", without even the slightest attempt to substantiate that claim.  Kindly quote me regarding that subject, or quote WP policy regarding the subject of this AFD, or else stop talking.  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you had me confused with some other user, such as User:jni, since I had never questioned the "sincerity and motivation" of any other editor, was not responsible for the, and I quote, "OMG DRAMA", and so far as I can see have always tried to assume good faith on the part of all editors. I don't have to and I cannot, I should like to remind you, take responsibility for any comment of other editors who have but in common with me their viewpoint on this one article. Since this thread has so far descended into incivility, do please excuse me for refusing to answer any further provocation on your part. If you think that I have acted contrary to any policy or guideline on editor behaviour, I invite you to lodge a complaint with any administrator, make a formal request that I be sanctioned, or by any other process you please, instead of attacking my conduct in this deletion nomination. M. Caecilius (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, probably; my editing skills are rusty, but she was the campaign manager for a Congressional in 2012; mentioned in this Village Voice article. Perhaps that meams something? Again, I've been out of AfD's for a loooooong while. Ab e g92 contribs 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * without making any more general comment or !vote, that particular position has almost never been considered here to show sufficient importance for an article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep McMillan has just been sentenced to three months & is appealing against the verdict: this case is going to generate more coverage. Whether the article should be moved to Trial of Cecily McMillan is another matter.TheLongTone (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Fifteen minutes of fame do not make someone notable. Wikipedia should not be used as a public relations tool, nor should its articles be maintained by someone's fan club. --173.79.76.211 (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)




 * Comment on ongoing coverage. Recall that notability guidelines counsel us to ask whether there is "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."


 * She's on the front page of the New York section in today's WSJ. The article focuses on McMillan's case and singles it out as noteworthy compared to the thousands of other cases arising out of OWS.


 * Quote: ''"The trial drew renewed attention to the group, and Ms. McMillan's case became a cause celebre, propelled by activists who saw a chance to highlight what they saw as police repression of Occupy Wall Street. Some City Council members, among others, called for leniency.  During Monday's hearing, [the prosecutor] said the proceedings 'weren't "a referendum on a large social cause or movement."'


 * I continue to think that all these NOTNEWSPAPER type objections are way, way off base. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and maybe rename. The person doesn't seem amazingly notable, but the event surely is.  There's enough commentary on Google News to fill up a featured article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as Trial of Cecily McMillan. Given the persistent coverage, there is clear notability for the event. Given that almost every section on the Occupy_Wall_Street page has its own main article, it seems appropriate to have a separate article for this event. I agree with Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) that the WP:NOTNEWS objections are off base.  The key section states:
 * For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
 * This event and its coverage make it clear this is not "announcements, sports, or celebrities." Nor is a journalism focused WP:NOR objection appropriate. The coverage has been sustained, international, and will continue.--Theredproject (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, not "routine news reporting", I concur with the arguments clearly stated above by Theredproject. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some more coverage of a court appearance on an unrelated(?) charge of trying to obstruct an OWS arrest and falsely claiming to be the suspect's lawyer. The article lightly discredits her argument that she was groped and lashed out in self-defense. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into Occupy Wall Street – The subject is notable for one event (Occupy Wall Street, and her subsequent arrest), so the article should be redirected to the OWS article. Epicgenius (talk)
 * Delete or redirect. A crystal-clear case of WP:ROUTINE WP:ONEEVENT (yes, both). Conflicts with police officers are pretty much a routine content of political demonstrations, and I don't see how the event has any lasting significance – the article does not even try to assert it; yeah, there is some hand-waving around the case, but pretty much all the fuss is because of general media frenzy aruond Occupy Wall Street movement. Having read the article as a total outsider, all I could say is: meh. No such user (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2014 (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.