Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rosanne States

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 keep. Consensus seems to be that there are enough sources to justify notability and thus inclusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rosanne States

Unnotable 3 year old child that fails WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Tavix (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A 3 year old that is only notable for one event. Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur that this is an insufficiently notable single event. JJL (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even the event fails WP:NOT#NEWS, so obviously, the person wouldn't be notable. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete BLP1E, NOT#NEWS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event was notable. I moved the article to Burial of Jennifer Rosanne States. --Eastmain (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the event took place in Nova Scotia, but it attracted coverage by The Globe and Mail, a national newspaper published in Toronto. Both articles appeared on page A1, the newspaper's front page. --Eastmain (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment but only over a two day period, apparently? The footnote reference is the only one that passes the "not news" standard and it doesn't even mention the individual's name (in which regard the page move was probably a good idea). JJL (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOT#NEWS. Schuym1 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Racism in Canada if someone ever decides to write it. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because of possible historical significance. There are sufficient sources to justify it. DGG (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. That the story appears on newspaper front pages is a significant indication of newsworthiness and notability. Now that the article is about the Burial of ..., that satisfies the WP:1E requirement to write about the event, not the person. This event is significant and is notable and I agree with Eastmain and DGG, as well as the article moving. — Becksguy (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major national story at the time, though today it's mostly been forgotten. It's also well referenced. - SimonP (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep borderline WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E, though historical significance and coverage in reliable sources is such that it might pass WP:N. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the page's renaming Mayumashu (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just wondering, but how does one verify a newspaper article from before the internet age? Tavix (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Public libraries and academic libraries often have good collections of local newspapers, possibly on microfilm. --Eastmain (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or accessible by database--ProQuest and EBSCOHost both have a good variety of non-Internet accessible newspapers. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historical event that passes WP:N in my opinion. Well sourced, too. ~~SIS~~ 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.