Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eve Carson
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
— User:Yls07, 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:OSE (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)