Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rozita Swinton


 * 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 merge with YFZ Ranch. Does not pass notability on its own. Dreadstar †  07:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rozita Swinton

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

this individual is not notable for anything other than making hoax phone calls. no relevance to where she deserves a page on Wikipedia. Naradasupreme (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge If there's a Wikipedia article growing about that polygamist compound in Texas, this article should go there. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or YFZ Ranch per Ecoleetage. cab (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; consider merge later if and when her involvement is proven, but a merge at this point (unlike the lk to the nominated article) would give excessive weight to the appearance that her connection to the case is well established. --Jerzy•t 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:BIO criteria with many newspaper sources (here) reporting on her story. Atyndall93  |  talk  08:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the incident is notable, the individual is not. Bastique demandez 22:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. (WP:BLP1E) Considering the fact that this is not a pleasing article, and that there are no inbound links, I don't think an article is warranted (not even a redirect, why would someone look for this name?). -- lucasbfr  talk 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A month from now no one may remember or care about this person. If she ends up actually being the caller, perhaps she would warrant a line or two in the YFZ Ranch article. She certainly does not warrant her own article. --TrustTruth (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is an established principle of notability in WP that a decline in someone's importance cannot change them from notable to n-n*: Clifford Irving is notable as someone who for a time looked like he'd written the book of the decade, and we need to support the research or curiosity of those who read articles written before he was exposed as a monumental fraud. Those who want to convince us to delete should not be staking that claim on their predictions abt the future. If i am mistaken in understanding that coverage of her goes beyond a few jerkwater and/or scandal-sheet papers, count her mentions and share with us your assessment of which of them have the highest journalistic status. (There's an explicit claim of wide coverage, with a G-news search which i find yields
 * 141 of about 322 for Rozita Swinton.
 * I seldom use G-news, but i'd have used quotes, and that still gives
 * 135 of about 306 for Rozita-Swinton.
 * I note that these include the international English-language press, and the Denver Post, which is about neck-and-neck in the circulation race with its tabloid rival.)
 * * Lest i create confusion, this is not to say that a keep can't later be reversed, by cooler heads. It says that what they are reversing is the judgment about whether the subject achieved notability (either at the time of the keep or later), and not about whether the keep voters' predictions were accurate. If you see evidence that someone's argument is based on supposed future notability, or is mistaken about whether notability has already been achieved, drop a flag on that play, but don't counter it with your own predictions. --Jerzy•t 06:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —Hiding T 16:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jerzy. If her involvement is not proven this is grounds for deletion of the article on the basis of patent non-notability, not keeping. KleenupKrew (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This should be clarified: Jerzy (as i think i am qualified to clarify) favored keep over merge bcz of the premature emphasis that the merge would give to the currently marginal (bcz doubtful) relevance to the article that she would be merged to. I chose not to repeat others' (for me so far persuasive) arguments ) against Del, but i should think it would be obvious that my saying doubtful factuality is relevant to K vs M implies i think the current doubt is irrelevant to K-or-M vs Del. We don't have to believe either her or her accusers to think she's part of the story. --Jerzy•t 06:09 & 06:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)'''
 * merge to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Kleenupkrew is terribly wrong to think that whether her involvement gets "proven" has any bearing whatsoever on her notability. That said, we don't have much biographical information and it makes more sense to have a short mention in the section about the raid rather than a separate article. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP1E. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; I just read the deletion policy, and I cannot see any reason to delete this. The woman has been arrested for one call, and is being considered by authorities as the source of the call leading to the recent raid.  All this is cited with references.  I mean, seriously, how can you reasonably have a huge page about the raid and about FLDS without this info??  We dont have to include every person in the news, but if we do include a news story, we cannot reasonably exclude (only one) important party.  Thinking her page should be deleted goes hand-in-hand with either a) thinking the whole story should be deleted, or b) censorship.  The info is clearly germane and cited.  artman772000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.98 (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2008
 * That discussant is and wrote as a day-old newcomer, whose oeuvre unrelated to this dispute still consists of one edit. (IMO and FWIW, their edits to the nominated article do improve it -- including inserting information, with citation, similar to some i had IIRC removed, mostly  for lack for citation.) --Jerzy•t 06:40, 29 April 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.