Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Borden 2


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Kara Borden

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

The last AFD of this closed suggesting that this be re-opened in several months, and I am of the opinion that this individual is not notable and that there is no point of having an article for them. Whatever hype there may have been in the media has long passed and we should not set a precedent of including memorial pages and keeping record of every story of someone's troubled life. This article also needlessly violates the privacy of the subject and their family. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. Cowman109 Talk 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. The lead pretty much states everything, a girl who was kidnapped and had her parents murdered. Not to sound harsh, but many murders and kinappings happen each year and almost all of them generate some press. Unless there is some evidence of huge press coverage (books, tv shows, etc), I don't think there is enough significance about this person to warrant an article. Mitaphane talk 02:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete very sad, but not notable per WP:BIO. Jerry lavoie 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * She does, in fact, pass WP:BIO with flying colours. WilyD 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * She does NOT pass WP:BIO I think you are overlooking the words the subject of. You can not substitute is mentioned in for this phrase.  Kara Borden is not the subject of the Fox news source identified in the article.  This is about Ludwig and the murders.  Kara is mentioned, but is CERTAINLY NOT the subject of.  The other source which reads more like a blog than a verifiable source (the one on the court-tv site) could be argued to have her as the subject of, but it is a stretch, and that would be only one source.  The blog by the boyfriend does not count as a verifiable source, and Kara is not the subject of that either, anyway.  Please explain how you arrived at the conclusion you are proclaiming here and in my editor review about how she passes WP:BIO with flying colors and how my comment above was editing from the gut and used poor reasoning. Jerry lavoie 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * She most certainly does pass WP:BIO and is the subject of the fox news article. If the closing admin will check the foxnews article, he or she will see that she is indeed the subject of the foxnews article.  The claim  that she's not is so disconnected from the truth I'm not sure how to address it. WilyD 15:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea how to address it: read the article. The subject of the article is the killings of the parents.  The person doing the talking in any situation is NOT the subject of what is being said, except when the person is talking about themselves.  The article is about the death of her parents.  So one could argue that they are the subject of that article, and therefore notable.  But the daughter is not the subject of the article, and therefore, if that article alone is used to determine notability, per Notability (people), she does NOT pass. Jerry lavoie 11:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This story has passed its "sell by" date and its not even something you here about very much in PA anymore.  Montco 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Does this affect David G. Ludwig?- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not every murderer needs an article. Philadelphia alone could crash the server.  Montco 04:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AniMate 04:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading the article again, it seems to be mostly about the "abduction" and the crimes of David G. Ludwig, rather than about Kara Borden. I do believe the incident is notable, but there really isn't any information about her that requires her to have her own article. AniMate 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A tragic story, but things like this happen more often than we realize.  Keeping this one  would do no good.  Prome  theus -X303-  05:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Philippe Beaudette 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This story continues to generate major media coverage worldwide. Idon't understand the constant mania amongst some users to delete articles. What is the gain? Tommypowell 13:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If this story was currently generating major media coverage worldwide, then this debate would be easy. Cite the sources.  Perhaps she IS notable, and those of use who only have information from the article are unaware of her notability???  If you have information pertaining to her notability, edit the article and improve it.  The supposed current frenzy of worldwide media coverage that you speak of is not mentioned even a tiny bit in the article.  Jerry lavoie 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - notability does not diminish with time. Tarinth 14:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:BIO - this is an encyclopaedia, not a news service, so topicality is irrelevent - I'm not sure why the nominator included this statement which invalidates any possible delete argument, as far as I can see. WilyD 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete She was briefly in the news, but never notable. She had her 15 minutes in the news, but there is no reason to have an encyclopedia article about every 14 year old girl who made bad choices. Let her get on with her life. Does not meet WP:BIO due to lack of multiple sources. She was a runaway, not a killer. Edison 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this confusing, given the presence of multiple sources. Care to explain? WilyD 18:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, pretty much summed up by the nom, Mitaphane and Prometheus. Agent 86 19:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A couple of problems with the nomination. First, for purposes of inclusion, notability and verifiability doesn't "expire" with time. (If it did, we'd lose all manner of historical information that the public has lost interest in.) Either she appears in published articles or she doesn't.  Assuming the references in the article are valid, and she has been the subject of multiple articles, she would be notable.  Second, the nominator mentioned the article was previously up for afd discussion, but looking at the article history and talk page I don't see any links to the previous debate.  If someone could provide a link to the previous debate for reference, that'd be great. At any rate, workign under the assumption that the references check out, I see no violation of policy here. Dugwiki 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. WP:BIO was linked a couple of times above, but it no longer exists and redirects to WP:Notability.  Just a heads up for people using that link. Dugwiki 23:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it redirects to WP:Notability (people). This is just as intended.  WP:BIO is shorter to type and easier to remember.  Therefore, citing it will probably continue to be prevelant. Johntex\talk 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Kara_Borden is the previous ADFD. And I agree with you that notability does not expire with time - in that case, I'll change my stance to state that this article never was notable. This was simply (sorry to put it harshly) another abduction that led to nothing notable, unlike other such crimes that spawned the AMBER alert system or Megan's law. If this article is deleted, policy should more clearly state what notability is in terms of short-lived news stories. Why do we write about common abductions that just happen to get news coverage when we don't cover every single murder that reaches news headlines and car accidents as well? Cowman109 Talk 23:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * {{WP:BIO|Notability is not subjective]]. I'm frankly puzzled at the people who keep arguing delete because she's non-notable.  She's indisputably notable - she meets one or more of the notability criteria.  I mean, sure, the article is of low importance, but Low importance is not an accepted criterion for deletion - and given that article evaluations keep it as a level of importance, I think it's fairly clear that establishing "only somewhat important" as a criterion for deletion would not be an easy task. WilyD 13:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WilyD. Article passes WP:BIO and this is an encyclopaedia, not a news service, so topicality is irrelevent.  It would be great if we had such an article on a similar girl from Roman or early Myan times.  It might be informative to today's historians. Johntex\talk 23:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it? Murder and Kidnapping have been around for a long time. Historians are interested in the past (not the present) as it shows what past events have shaped our present day. Looking down the road, is there anything significant about this murder/kidnapping(note: we are ultimately judging this article based on the murder/kidnapping since outside of this event, nothing exceptional has happened to this Kara) that has an impact on our culture that will significantly effect the future of society? —Mitaphane talk 00:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per WilyD. -Toptomcat 00:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect to David G. Ludwig. "Victim of.." (like "husband of..." or "friend of..." or "brother of...") a notable person doesn't transfer to the other person, especially when there's no info about them that isn't or shouldn't be contained in the notable person's article. - Shaundakulbara 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - meets WP:BIO, "notability" doesn't expire. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jerry lavoie FirefoxMan 20:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable crime case to look back at. I agree that notability does not expire. User:Dimadick
 * Keep - I don't think any of these articles that srping from news sories should be concidered for deletion until at least a year has passed since their creation. If you read the article about the various encyclopedias and the history of them in general then you know that wikipedia has alread changed what it meas to be an encylocepedia.  FOr these sorts of sensational stories wikipedia provides a service that wikinews lacks, goals that wikinews does not have.  Further in many cases I suspect the articles will prove to be notable in the long run.  Keep them all and then come bback next year when we dont have to have a crystal ball to say they are not notable. Dalf | Talk 06:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just a G-News Archive search shows she's the subject of many non-trivial published works (added a couple to article). WP:Notability is permanent.  --Oakshade 07:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep PM1287 15:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst the story is sad, it is no more notable than any other of its kind. Newsworthiness is not per se long-term notability. WMMartin 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Newsworthiness is not per se long-term notability - WP:BIO disagrees. WilyD 18:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We may have lost track of what non-trivial means, lets again look at WP:BIO for a definition: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial"   - - - She does NOT pass. Jerry lavoie 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not.  is maybe the most important omission. The word trivial is pretty self explanitory, but the sources are not mere directory entries, nor do they only mention the subject in passing.  While the coverage on her may not conglomerate to a 200 page book (and if we searched, it might - I have no idea).  Why not look at the other kind of criterion in WP:BIO for a guide of what kind of person is notable.  Anyone who's taken the field for an inning of major league baseball without touching the ball passes WP:BIO - and they're likely to have comparable or lesser coverage than this girl does.  Whereas the sources here don't match the 200 page biography example, they're far closer to that than the example of trivial coverage.  If you believe the coverage is trivial, you need to go back and review it.  It's not, and it's not even mistakable for trivial coverage.  Look, I recognise you must have formed your opinion earlier when the article was in worse shape, but as it stands the article is now a 100% clear cut case of passing WP:BIO - it's not even remote possible to plausible argue otherwise without being inconsistant with the facts.  It happens that an article that looks like a delete at first glance turns into a keep, after some editing.  Hell, the first article I nominated for deletion got improved during the AfD and even I have to recognise that by the ene it was a clear-cut keep.  Rather tha struggle to vindicate your original conclusion, rejoice that the the encyclopaedia has been improved in the meantime.  A positive thing has happened for a valuable, encyclopaedic article.  Fighting about it simply makes no sense. WilyD 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Nathanm mn 19:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: She has been the topic of quite a few news articles. As said before, notability does not expire. This passes WP:BIO criterion and should be kept.  . V .  {{sub|[}}{{sub|Talk|Email]}} 18:10, 29 January 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.