Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Jace (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April Jace

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia:ONEEVENT, and Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL. Has not received significant news coverage outside of her death. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We are back with the same NOM as the previous AfD, which resulted in a Keep. Obviously he is not satisfied with the previous decision so he is making us re-litigate the previous decision. OK, mom said no, so lets wait and ask dad. What we established previously was that Jace was a world champion masters track and field athlete prior to her murder. She obviously is not going to keep generating news on her athletic career. Her subsequent murder by her actor husband overwhelms a simple google search, but like the previous AfD,WP:ONEEVENT still does not apply. Since the previous AfD, the trial of her husband/murderer occurred. While we did not keep the article up to current news, the story was not stagnant. I have added additional sources including two quotes from the trial where her running career was a factor in her husband's jealousy, which led to her murder and the pre-meditated methodology of the murder. Trackinfo (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTTIME - An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed, as consensus can change. Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_23#Revision_of_Athletics_Criteria and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ihar Dolbik show that there is now a consensus that master's athletes are not inherently notable. As there is no independent or non-routine coverage of her athletic career, WP:ONEEVENT does apply. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You explained why you could nominate this article for a second time, but you didn't explain how this is still "one event" after the additional information was added by Trackinfo have made about more than one event. --Donald Trung (Talk) (Articles) 06:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "additional information" was about the same event Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article seems to try to combine athletic achievement with an unfortunate news event, neither of which qualify on their own. The subject does not meet WP:NTRACK notability criteria. The murder is a news event.--Rpclod (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was through an AfD as close as 2014 and was Kept. Clearly notable and passing WP:CRIME. Good references.BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not default notable per consensus developed since the time of last discussion, and the rest falls under one event guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable biography. Hmlarson (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing any evidence that anything has changed since last time to form a new consensus. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her murder clearly passes WP:NCRIME - widely covered. So the question her would be whether this should be April Jace or Murder of April Jace. It does seem she possibly has some pre-murder coverage (as a master's sprint champion, and due to coverage stemming from her relationship to her husband) - I'm undecided on the correct name.Icewhiz (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable murder. Since she has some coverage on her own, I think she could keep her own name, but I believe the murder should be stated clearly in her short description since that's what she's most notable for. Lonehexagon (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The murder itself was another unfortunate incident of domestic abuse, but was not notable as murders go. The reason why the murder received coverage was because of the murderer's identity. Since notability is not inherited, neither the murder nor the victim are notable. If the event is to be covered anywhere, it should be in the murderer's article assuming that the murderer is in fact notable. A section already exists in the murderer's article regarding "murder conviction" and perhaps that could be supplemented if it does not already suffice.--Rpclod (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While nptability is not inherited, indeed, it is gained by coverage (for whatever reason motivates the media and academics). In this case we have significant and lasting coverage of the event - so it is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:SIGCOV, the reasons why this aor any particular murder generates SIGCOV are irrelevant to guaging notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NTRACK as Masters championships seem not to apply. However, on the basis of significant coverage under WP:NCRIME it seems to be a narrow keep. Chetsford (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2018 (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.