Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Davis (county clerk)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 kept overwhelmingly -- Y not? 17:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Davis (county clerk)

[edit]
Kim Davis (county clerk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For all her presence in the news over the past few days, I just don't see how she has attained any kind of enduring or permanent notability as a topic that should be permanently enshrined in an encyclopedia — she's a low-level county official (not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL) who's gotten a brief blip of media coverage which just makes her a WP:BLP1E. It's a core principle of Wikipedia that we are not a news site — every single person who happens to get into the news for a couple of days does not automatically become somebody we should maintain an article about. Delete. Redirect to Miller v. Davis, per our binding policy about writing about a BLP1E in an article about the event rather than a standalone biography of the person as a separate topic from the event. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Keep for now. Obviously notable as a figure discussed far and wide, and there's no time limit on notability. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've eased my position somewhat. If this blows over very quickly, then a redirect/merge may be called for. I don't want to get out a crystal ball, but I see no harm in keeping the article, given the propensity already demonstrated by this individual to continue blowing up this controversy. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - This Stand in the Schoolhouse Door moment will come and go, but I think that it will likely have a legacy akin to other, past stands by hard-line government officials. As stated above, notability doesn't have a time limit. Having said that, it's the event that's the center of everything and not the person, so I do feel like some kind of shifting about may be in order. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't meet WP:BLP1E because it has to meet all three conditions, and it does not meet #3: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented. She is the George Wallace of our time, standing in that doorway. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what is it about her that requires us to maintain a BLP of her and an article about Miller v. Davis as two separate topics, considering there's virtually nothing even remotely noteworthy that we can actually say about her outside the context of Miller v. Davis in particular? Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ONEEVENT, In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. ... If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. In this case, I think those parameters are met. Details about her four marriages are not at all related to Miller v. Davis. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was wondering about this myself, but discovered, as others have said above, that keeping is easily justified by the third condition of the BLP1E guideline. This is a very notable event which has been covered in multiple news articles, and her role within the event is primary, therefore a biography is appropriate. – Robin Hood  (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Maybe merge later, but it looks like she will go down in history as a minor character in the gay marriage debate, and there's plenty of refs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - First, Bearcat, you neglected to notify me of this AfD nomination. The subject of the article is at the center of a historic series of events directly related to the most significant civil rights legal case of the past 40-plus years. BLP1E exists so that we don't have articles about little Johnny who scored in three high school football games and was arrested one weekend for drunk driving. It exists so that we don't have trivial articles about private citizens private lives. Specific to the criteria of BLP1E, (#1) Has the subject been covered in reliable sources outside of the current series of events? Yes - [1][2]. (#2) Is the subject likely to remain a low profile person? No, she's already a public figure, a politician, and she has taken her fight to SCOTUS. She will be remembered in history books for her unlawful activism and for obstructing the constitutional rights of US citizens. (#3) Is the event significant or is the individual's role substantial and well documented? Obviously. There are 841,000 Google news hits for "Kim Davis"+"Rowan County", a strong indication that the subject is of significant notability as required by WP:BASIC. Every major news source has covered the subject, some in exhaustive detail. - MrX 22:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Notification is not required. Notification is only a courtesy when there is only one major contributor of an article, which is not the case here. The fact that you responded to the AfD within 2 hours after the AfD started is good evidence that the notification was not needed. Victor Victoria (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This case, and this individual's likeness are becoming very well known all over the world. While other public officials have taken similar stances, this one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS, and because her own tangled marriages invite comment on her wider moral stance. That last point, more than the first, is making this case colourful and memorable. Also, this looks like growing longer legs, given the upcoming court appearances, which we may be confident will attract heavy media attention. We're not a newspaper, but this whole affair is already well beyond being a footnote to history. --Pete (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"[T]his one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS" is incorrect and misleading. I see quite a few online publications making similar incorrect and misleading assertions. About 10,000 writs of certiorari are filed annually with the US Supreme Court, and I don't know how many other motions of various types. Anybody can file a writ of certiorari or a motion for a stay. Almost all are denied, as was this one. This doesn't make anything notable. The Supreme Court did not hear her case at all. Quite likely, none of the justices even read her emergency brief — there's no way any of them could read 10,000+ briefs annually. Only their law clerks read most of them. Rahul (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your clarification. However, on looking at today's New York Times, I find Ms Davis on the front page, and the paper is calling her "a national symbol"[3] – that's a pretty good reason to keep this BLP, I reckon. --Pete (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand the nominator's concerns about WP:BLP1E, but I think it's pretty obvious that Kim Davis herself is now getting coverage that's beyond the scope of rule 3, which says "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." It's pretty obvious that her role is significant and well documented. The Guardian has written an article about her history leading up to becoming a clerk ([4]) and there's been coverage comparing this to the schoolhouse stand. I think that's well beyond the requirements to keep. Nomader (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're allowed to have a different opinion on the keepability of this article than I do, which is why the process allows for debate. But you most certainly are not allowed to dismiss my perfectly legitimate different opinion as "immature". Read WP:CIVIL and watch your mouth, because I will file an WP:RFC if you insult me again. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was being very polite but given your choice of words, I would like to add that your nomination is not just immature, it is entirely stupid, ignorant, idiotic and waste of time and energy of all involved. If you have got a lot of free time to kill, I'd suggest that you try not to waste time and resources of others too. --Badnaam (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was made in good faith and reflects a reasonable interpretation of the policy, even though I disagree with it. If your best counterargument is to insult the nominator then there's no point in even participating in the discussion. - MrX 12:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a story that seems far from over with more information quickly coming out and has already, in the eyes of what seems a unanimous majority, met the criteria of notability. Her marriage history, and the SCOTUS cases, merit this. Everyone else is making this argument far better than I. 172.90.226.8 (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As everyone has already proved above quite clearly, the article is obviously notable per all accepted procedures and guidelines. I really don't understand this rush to deletion that people keep trying to push through now seemingly every time one of these things comes up, which it seems is almost inevitably followed by a speedy keep, whether it be one of these police shootings, or who knows what not. It seems to me like there needs to be a better procedure in place so we don't keep wasting time on this continuous merry-go-round of deletion discussions that just waste time, and also discourage people who may wish to work on the article but worry that they're just wasting time because it might simply just be deleted anyway. (And yes, I suppose I put one too many "waste times" in there.) ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's obvious BLP1E. Everything she is known for is related to the gay marriage issue and while it's a big deal in the 24 hour news cycle, it won't even be a trivial pursuit question in 10 years. Pure WP:RECENTISM. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close now: I appreciate the purpose of the AfD, but we've done this a million times. We can revisit in six months and if it warrants merger elsewhere, it is always decided more calmly when at a distance from the original coverage.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As online news publications come under increasing pressure to attract hits, they more and more feature controversial stories that are, in the long run, of little or no consequence. Ten years ago, a person like Kim Davis might have been mentioned in a tiny column in the back pages of newspapers. Today she is front-page news, not because her role is of any importance, but because people like to read gossip about other people, and she is connvenient fodder for meaningless gossip. Furthermore, most published articles about her, while overtly reporting the facts, are in almost every case opinion columns disguised as journalism. If Wikipedia keeps a page for her, it will remain there long after Kim Davis fades away in the public consciousness. I don't think Wikipedia should dignify this situation, and add to it, by having maintaining a separate page about Kim Davis. Let the event speak for itself and keep the person out of it beyond mentioning her role in the event. Rahul (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This woman is notable: her case has gone to the Supreme Court as well as the 6th Circuit Court. Keep also per Nomader's comment and WP:People. CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"[H]er case has gone to the Supreme Court" is incorrect and misleading. Please see my more detailed response above that begins with: "[T]his one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS" is incorrect and misleading. Rahul (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Being the subject of a Supreme Court decision/order" is incorrect and misleading. Please see my more detailed response above that begins with: "[T]his one shines out because her case has gone to SCOTUS" is incorrect and misleading. Rahul (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)&oldid=1074096690"