Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eulia Love


 * 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 move to Shooting of Eulia Love. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Eulia Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Any coverage of her by reliable third party sources are related solely to her death. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete . No evidence that the person shows any semblance of notability per Wikipedia standards. It is possible that the events around her death could be turned into an article, but that would take work and more sources than are showing right now. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Shooting of Eulia Love — I've added two sources suggesting notability of the death. A JSTOR search reveals several sources describing it as a "well-publicized" killing. BLP1E seems to apply.--Carwil (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the added sources is simply a reprinting of a government document. I'm not sure that counts as coverage by a third party. It looks more like a primary source, since it's produced by the police about an event the police were involved in. The second source isn't actually coverage of the Love death, but coverage of a more recent one and saying it had similarities to the older event. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's tough to find full-text coverage from contemporary newspapers and magazines in digital archives (though Google Books snippets show there were some), but multiple sources, including the ones I've just added either describe the case as "well-publicized" or refer to it as "the Eulia Love crisis" for the city.--Carwil (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that it was well publicized, but as NOTNEWS says, most newsworthy events aren't notable in their own right. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is still referenced decades later in documentary though. What makes this less notable than Harlins? No rap lyrics? Ranze (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what you're talking about since I don't listen to rap. Being referenced in a documentary isn't significant coverage. Being the subject of a documentary would be. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Herald-Examiner editor Jim Bellows writes in his memoir, The Last Editor: "At the Herald we ran a 22-paragraph story on the front page. A few days later we ran another story on page one. And a few days after that we ran another front-page story, this one illustrated by a smiling photo of a young Eulia Love."
 * He goes on to quote from LAPD Chief Darryl Gates' memoir, The Chief: "The terrible shooting of Eulia Love on January 3,, 1979, would turn into a powder keg. For the next ten months, the city of Los Angeles and the police department would be in utter turmoil, fomented by relentless newspaper stories that played up the facts selectively and turned a mentally unstable woman's death into a nightmare that continues to haunt the black community and the LAPD today."
 * Additionally, the LA Times published its coverage of the story (multiple stories and an editorial, it appears) as some kind of separate booklet: Mitchell, John, and Doug Shuit. 1979. Eulia Love: Anatomy of a Fatal Shooting : Facts Disputed. Los Angeles, Calif.: Los Angeles Times.
 * I think GNG is met here.--Carwil (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue was never was GNG met. It wasn't nominated because GNG wasn't met. It was nominated because it is a case of BLP1E. All the coverage centers around the singular event of her death. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, can we move to Shooting of Eulia May Love per WP:SNOW ?--Carwil (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Per SNOW? I'm not sure where you're seeing the snow storm. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By agreement then? You're the nom, and the move would shift from a BIO1E to a notable event. (I don't find this kind of process pickiness enjoyable.)--Carwil (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is it "pickiness" to follow proceses or actually question the use of an improperly used term? That's pretty lacking in good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and Move per and WP:TITLE. WP:GNG met as nominator confirms. Hmlarson (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per Carwil, etc. I remember this event, it was a significant news story of that year.   Montanabw (talk)  08:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and move. Do you agree with keep the article and changing the name? If so, this can now be closed as a speedy keep, withdrawal of nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we're already deciding that the "death of" article is or is not notable. That's not something I'm entirely convinced of. This discussion should be about THIS article, as it stands. Why aren't we talking about delete and redirect? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we were. I see enough support for an article; I don't think we should delete and begin afresh, and I do think this history needs preserved. Therefore, my !vote is keep. Further, I think this isn't the right title, but that this is a useful redirect. Again, my recommendation is to keep. Ultimately, I think it's keep and move, but move is a subset/offshoot if a keep outcome. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2016 (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.