Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Smart (abductee)


 * 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 speedy keep, you've made your point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart (abductee)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pursuant to administrator Newyorkbrad, Wikipedia articles cannot contain the names of minors who were victims of crime. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_28 John celona 23:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC) repairing nomination. -- saberwyn 06:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - If we can't have an article on Shawn Hornbeck, who was kidnapped for 5 times the length of time of this girl, then we shouldn't have one on this girl. After all, when she is in her 30's she might be traumatized to know a wikipedia article exist about her regarding a horrible experience she endure when she was just 14.  Right Brad???   Fighting for Justice 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * To the best of my knowledge, this AfD has not been transcluded onto the appropriate page. I do not know if it is a serious nomination or an attempt to make a WP:POINT at my expense. If the page becomes a live AfD then I will rely upon other Wikipedians to make their voices heard on the issues raised.
 * User:Fighting for Justice presents himself as a voice for the rights of crime victims on Wikipedia, while User:John celona presents as an anti-censorship activist. Both raise, albeit with strident and unnecessary rhetoric, different aspects of the question of how we should deal with people who are victimized by serious crimes, especially as minors. These are not easy issues, particularly when the victim has become far more famous for whatever reason than the typical victim or where the victim or his or her family has, after the crime was over, elected to take on a public role in addressing criminal justice issues.
 * Much of the Wikipedia community as a whole is introspecting and agonizing over how best to deal with these issues. They are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case (see generally, Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Workshop), various policy pages, and a series of deletion debates. I have presented my own thoughts on these issues on various pages of the project, most recently on Deletion review (see at the top and then the long post immediately after the arbitrary section break). I have tried there to survey all the considerations for and against keeping these types of articles in the encyclopedia; the simplistic comments above here ignore all the complexities of the matter, although I am doing my best to assume good faith rather than the presence of trolling. Please approach this DRV with a seriousness properly attendant to the nature of the issues presented. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: It hasn't been placed on the appropriate page (maybe because John celona got blocked before he could), but obviously was nominated in bad faith per WP:POINT. An admin should delete this page (and the irony of that doesn't escape me btw). Lipsticked Pig 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, okay, now it has been nominated for deletion properly. I'm not saying I disagree with deletion (this is a very difficult and painful issue), but obviously a policy for these situations is needed, rather than an emotionally draining bitter fight over each and every one. I assume that such a policy would arise from the Shawn Hornbeck DRV, not here. Lipsticked Pig 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is silly, and I was quite shocked to see this tag at the top of the entry. Smart is a public figure, like it or not - and her story has been told repeatedly by every major news outlet in the country. Removing her article from Wikipedia (or even proposing to do so) is a stunt. Boisemedia 05:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close seems to be a a WP:POINT based nomination more than anything. Viridae Talk 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom FtJ there is no difference between naming Elizabeth Smart "repeatedly raped" and nameing Shawn Hornbeck as "repeatedly raped". Same story, different sex.  Exactly identical situation. Wjhonson 05:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As these cases have been widely reported I just don't see the point in pretending that it never happened here. Articles shouldn't be prurient but this isn't a place for censorship. Are we going to get rid of 'Mary Bell' next?  Nick mallory 06:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep While I understand the nominator's argument, I don't necessarily agree with it. The article is well research, the information is in the public domain, and the family has gone to the point of publishing a book on the events surrounding the kidnapping. Meets WP:V, WP:BIO. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored. If you're going to remove an article about one person who is linked to a notable crime, then you're basically setting a major precident which lays the groundwork for removing all other articles of persons associated with or victims of crime. You could forseeably use this as a basis for removing articles on 9/11, Columbine, and the Virginia Tech shootings. This has to be the silliest XfD i've read this week, and yes even sillier than the nomination to get rid of WP:BJAODN. Thewinchester (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The arguments are the same ones used at the DRV for Shawn Hornbeck. His story was also widely reported (over a hundred thousand google hits at the moment), the article was also well researched and cited. The BLP point is A) minor and B) raped.  If that is not enough to remove the article, then you should go all to the DRV for Shawn and vote to keep that one as well since the situation is... identical. Wjhonson 07:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I echo the same sentiments. Why don't you all support the effort in bringing back the Shawn Hornbeck article?  His kidnapping is just as notable as the Smart one if not more.  For example, his was gone much longer.  Fighting for Justice 07:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge/Rename to article on abduction Elizabeth Smart is no longer a minor. That nullifies the comparison to Michael Devlin abductees that are minors.  That said, Elizabeth Smart is not particularly notable outside of her abduction therefore he bio is not necessary and the relevant details of her life can be covered in the other articles.  Remove the personal bio details (i.e. picture, birthdate, etc) --Tbeatty 07:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to article with information on the crime itself, looks set to go, just need to rewrite first paragraph and a change of tense in others Guycalledryan 07:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I missed the Shawn Hornbeck discussions, and disagree strongly with Fighting for Justice's suggestion that it is hypocritical to comment here without also wading into that swamp - that ship has sailed (and, as many helpful editors have pointed out, there are many, many facts of the two cases that are different). However, two wrongs don't make a right. This article should be kept, as this person is notable.  UnitedStatesian 08:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The DRV for Shawn is ongoing as we speak. It's not finished. Wjhonson 08:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to the comment I know that all of these articles have DRV cases opened on them as soon as the admin. closes the AfD. For me the ship sails at AfD closure, regardless of whether I like the outcome, and it should for more editors.  DRV is a very destructive process, IMHO, and I refuse to participate. UnitedStatesian 08:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - pointy nomination - and in any case, Smart is a public figure, having routinely given interviews over an extended period of term relating directly to her case, and advocacy surrounding it. --Haemo 08:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, this whole nomination is pointy in the extreme - and the editors responsible should be ashamed of abusing the AfD process in such a way. I should reject this deletion solely on the basis of WP:POINT. --Haemo 08:41, 1 June 2007 (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.