Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting of Samantha Ramsey


 * 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   delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Samantha Ramsey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No particular notability: appears to fail WP:N/CA. The shooting took place back in April, and if the shooting was truly notable, then an article probably would have been created at the time. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it took a little over 4 months to get a Wikipedia article on this topic is utterly irrelevant and proves absolutely nothing. Wikipedia is so far behind the times that it is missing articles on large numbers of topics that have been obviously notable for hundreds of years. James500 (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What does it take for somebody to be notable? Is Barack Obama notable? Why or Why Not? I just want to understand your guidelines, if you have any.

Also how does this work? Some jerkoff accuses me of ruining Wikipedia, and there's a jury trial by "consensus"? What's that mean? Am I am part of that voting consensus? I sure hope so, because I believe my vote matters on this, and I'm still working on this page, and it's hard to keep on plowing a field when you've just stepped on a turd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefreedomskool (talk • contribs) 01:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, local event that doesn't seem to have attracted national coverage. And yes, Wikipedia works by consensus, and you're a lot more likely to gain consensus if you don't curse at people. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe Barack Obama is notable. These two above me do not. They have not said so. You have more in common with me than these losers.

How foolish would one be just to delete Samantha Ramsey just because you do not like my words? I do not believe your words. You seek to hate and destroy. I wish we had a real conversation, but you can't tell me the truth about the "consensus", and the "voting", because you're a sadistic lunatic. How many 19 year girls have you killed? If you're able to murder her legacy just because your soul is empty on the inside, I wonder... how many other 19 year olds have you murdered? Let's waste all our time on this stupid argument... I hate you people. You aren't helping make this article better. I would love a real conversation, but folks who aren't losers who feast on the sadistic pleasure of murdering a 19 year old out of the pages of our history books forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefreedomskool (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There's 18 nationally recognized media sources saying that Samantha Ramsey was a real person, and that this murder took place, and that it was significant to appoint a Special Prosecutor for the case, and change Kentucky's criminal justice system. 18 pieces of news, one would think is way plenty to justify it's significance, but heck, these losers want to dance, I'll dance. NawlinkWiki... ah, hellNaw, lol. She is real, and I do not know what arguments are or are not good... LBJ says to ruin a person, just accuse them of a crime... like, not being significant... not notable to you? Per what standards? Just because wikipedia never wrote about it before? If you used that as a guideline, then there would never be any new articles written, ever, since every new article written wouldn't have a past post... it's tautology. It's illogical and poor reasoning. Surely Wikipedia doesn't play like this. You're going to make me read about all this... so much wasted time. She's significant, there's a million sources, I don't know who these people are, I feel like I'm being picked on, and the real work is being stalled. Thefreedomskool (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To Thefreedomskool: you sound like someone with a passionate personal interest in the subject, which is fine, but you have to realize that other editors are not out to get you and they aren't completely illogical or uncaring. For an encylopedia, one time criminal events have a high bar for inclusion, horrible as that crime might be. They need to prove they have lasting notability beyond a news cycle or two to be considered notable - I would read the following:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)


 * I don't say this be insulting, or to even say that this heinous crime isn't notable (I haven't studied the sources enough to see if they establish lasting notability). But you will be more successful in your goals if you state your case with respect to other editors, and inside of the above policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm passionate about my work, and I worked hard on this, and if there's reasonable objections, I can discuss, but if it feels vindictive... what am I supposed to do? Convince a jerk? Most of the time, this is not possible, and yes, there could be jerks who works for Wikipedia. But I'm game. There's 7 days of discussion, and in that time, I can tidy the article up a bit. It's the first draft, and I'm happy with it, as an article here or not. We shall see. Thefreedomskool (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I also have no personal interest in this whatsoever, so nice pop shot right out of the gate. I have never met or seen Samantha Ramsey, ever. I do not know her, or her family, and or Tyler's, or anybody's, which makes me a great objective author to write this article as I am 3rd person. Thefreedomskool (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It doesn't satisfy WP:N/CA. Wikipedia is not the place for such incidents; this particular one simply hasn't garnered lasting national or international attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Shooting of Samantha Ramsey by a Boone County Police officer, who was never indicted or charged with a crime, has been covered extensively by nearly 50 listed independent sources, is relevant, and significant, and is "worthy of notice". WP:GNG

Clarityfiend is a liar. How can I say this nicely? Here's a million pages that says Wikipedia has covered many shooting incidents. I used to brag about wikipedia. No more. Here Clarifyfiend, you liar:

1) The Shooting of Amadou Diallo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

2) The Shooting of Andy Lopez. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Andy_Lopez

3) The Shooting of Jordan Davis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jordan_Davis

4) The Shooting of Stephen Waldorf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_Waldorf

5) The Shooting of Dan McGoo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shooting_of_Dan_McGoo

6) The Shooting of Renisha McBride. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Renisha_McBride

7) The Shooting of Timothy Stansbury. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Timothy_Stansbury

I guess Clarityfiend, and all psychos like him, only argument now is that she was a nobody loser, and since some random anonymous cruel haters judge her to be a nobody loser, therefore, your going to wipe her out of the history books. Hmmm... a bunch of nobody losers saying she's a nobody loser... and she only had 19 years to accomplish something! Or at least, 1 year, as an adult, free to do as she wanted, for 1 year, of adulthood life. And in that year, she didn't become Governor or cure cancer, so, her life is expendable. Clarityfiend... you're sick.

Here's wikipedia's stated standards:

The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. The Shooting of Samantha Ramsey is "significant", "interesting", and "unusual enough to deserve attention".

The Shooting of Samantha Ramsey is "worthy of notice", which is why there's hundreds of articles written about her case, media for local venues, to national venues, all over the place. Maybe it's because you haven't heard of it? I refuse to believe any of you all think there's incontrovertible evidence that her slaying was absolutely of no note whatsoever.

Even if you think Samantha Ramsey is a loser who nobody should ever speak of, ever, this event involving her is significant for local, state, and national policy, which is why nearly 50 listed media sources have been documented in just this one wiki article. "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E Thefreedomskool (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have blocked User:Thefreedomskool for repeated personal attacks on other users (such as the one on Clarityfiend, above) after I repeatedly warned him/her not to do that.  NawlinWiki (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Rpclod (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - it seems to have gotten some attention in the media beyond the local county, and has lead to the appointment of a special prosecutor. It does need extensive editing. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - sadly, this is routine news coverage and therefore fails notability. 1292simon (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This meets the definition of interesting. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.86.241 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Its interesting" isn't really a valid argument for preserving the article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is only an essay. WP:BIO and WP:EVENT, on the other hand, are both guidelines, and they begin with a dictionary definition of notability, drawn from Encarta, that refers to a person or event that is "interesting . . . enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". James500 (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian. USA Today and New York Daily News don't look like local coverage. James500 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 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.