Deletion of Eve Carson

Comment: Notable even before her death, as per her stature as president of a student body of approximately 30,000 students and as evidenced in numerous articles about her in notable secondary sources (The Daily Tar Heel) prior to her death.  (To those who would argue that the DTH is a non-notable source, I would respond that it is the newspaper of record in a community with more citizens than many of America's medium-sized cities.  It has a circulation much larger than many local newspapers serving such cities.  It has a strong reputation for, and has won awards for, its unbiased and impartial coverage of events relevant to that community.  It meets every criterion for a  | Reliable Source with flying colors.)  The fact that nobody bothered to make an article about her presidency prior to her death reflects only that Wikipedia was not the most efficient source for such information at that time (the http://www.dailytarheel.com/ DTH website was more than adequate).  Now that she is notable on a national scale (her ''national'' notability does extend from her death, yes), people across the country who have never heard of the Daily Tar Heel predictably turn to a national source of information such as Wikipedia and expect to find information about her there, including links to sources like the DTH where they can learn more about her life.  Others have pointed out some of the more disturbing dimensions of this debate (zeal to diminish the "notability" of a person so soon after that person's death, in violation of a widely accepted social norm not to speak ill of the recently dead; the fact that this '''exact same debate''' happens after any previously-non-national public figure dies; the fact that as a reflection of (or in spite of) all Wikipedia policies, numerous biographies exist on Wikipedia for persons whose notability stems only from their death and whose lifetime accomplishments are much less than those of Ms. Carson; the fact that despite  | Other Stuff Exists (which, in case some of us need reminding, is ''not Wikipedia Policy'' in favor of ''inconsistent editorial decisions'' but instead an ''essay'' discussing the challenges of maintaining consistency), consistency IS IMPORTANT in editorial decisions and it would be a mistake to break with Wikipedia precedent in this praticular instance.  As a final observation, I would point out that if the events that had caused Eve Carson to reach national notability had been of another kind (say, e.g., a corruption or sex scandal, I predict that all the editors arguing here for non-notability on the basis of publication in the ''Daily Tar Heel'' would instead be arguing that Eve Carson was a public figure for the purposes of the First Amendment, not entitled to legal protection from defamation, citing exactly the same articles in the DTH
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:OSE)

Comment: addressing objections several people have raised (I already recommended "Keep" above): In response to those citing #NEWS, it says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." While murders are regrettably far more routine than they should be, they are still significantly less routine than "announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism," so I do not see that as an argument against an article such as this one. In response to those citing , it says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The purpose of this, as I read it, is to prevent someone noting that, for example, a friend or teacher of Eve's was quoted in a news article about her, and creating an article about that friend or teacher, but Eve herself is hardly "low profile" in relation to this event.  After reviewing #NEWS, , and , I withdraw my objection to moving this article to Eve Carson murder and redirecting Eve Carson there. Although this does not appear to be the most common practice on Wikipedia with respect to people notable solely on account of being murder victims, it does appear more in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:NOT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: I'm still seeing a lot of  delete arguments being made, so I'd just like to reiterate that Wikipedia is chock-full of people who are notable for only one event; those I previously mentioned, Leon Czolgosz, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, Mark David Chapman, Thich Quang Duc, plus Sirhan Sirhan, Günter Parche, Gavrilo Princip, John Hinckley, Jr., you could go on and on. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, but rather pointing out that having a policy that says that we shouldn't have articles for people notable for only one event is clearly flawed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: Very few of the "Keep"ers have addressed : "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted." (While noting that it says "may be unwarranted" not "is unwarranted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Per .  Not everyone in the news is Wikipedia notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO1E)

Comment: Whilst a tragic death, being the victim of a crime does not automatically make someone notable.  Inclusion of this material would be acceptable if the individual had other claims to notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.  From what I can see from the sources and discussions on the article talk page, this is not the case.  I therefore conclude that the article fails  because the depth of coverage in cited sources is insufficient to assert sufficient notability for inclusion.  Best wishes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: for now.  It can be better re-evaluated with the perspective of time in six months or a year or five years if there's still significant feeling at that time that she's not notable. |Wikipedia does not have a deadline, and if the article is deleted now but it's decided in a year or so that she was notable after all, the work that has already been done is lost and has to be re-done. Also, I'm opposed to moving this to Eve Carson murder or Death of Eve Carson.  While there doesn't seem to be any uniform policy on Wikipedia, and examples of both can be found (that is, there are articles on people notable solely for being murder victims directly under the person's name, and there are articles on people notable solely for being murder victims under the event), it seems looking at the various subcategories under :Category:Murder victims, that it's much more common to have the article under the person's name directly.  (Granted, not all of those people are notable ''solely'' on account of being murder victims, but many are
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:There is no deadline (WP:DEADLINE)

Comment: We get it with the Natalie Holloway reference.  Repeating the same  argument over and over and over and over doesn't make it any more valid.  Please use a new approach with unique arguments or stop filling this AfD with this.  Special:Contributions/24.124.109.67|24.124.109.67
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ALLORNOTHING)

Comment: Wikinews is the proper venue for breaking news stories. Purely a memorial article at this point. Fails .  Also delete per . If in the future it turn out there is a murder case and trial which is notable, and which leads to societal changes or new laws, then Eve Carson murder could be created
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: per  "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", #NEWS and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:NOT||WP:MEMORIAL)