Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Génesis Carmona

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. slakr\ talk / 03:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Génesis Carmona

Génesis Carmona (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)

Contested PROD. This looks to be a case of WP:BLP1E - a beautiful woman getting killed in such a horrible way gets a little bit of media attention, nothing long-lasting and nothing which demonstrates notability. Her beauty pagenat title looks to be a very small, local one and does not imply notability either. At the most we could redirect to 2014 Venezuelan protests. GiantSnowman 12:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A point of order. WP:BLP1E clearly states: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E). Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. This is not a BLP (the person is dead), and it is not a biography of a low-profile individual, as it is a beauty pageant winner, and because of that, articles about her death are plentiful and sustained, not to omit, worldwide. Basically, the nomination fails on technicalities, not just one, but two. --Mareklug talk 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E Issue As per above WP:BLP1E only applies to living people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. A sad story, but a clear case of BLP1E. I think it should be included in 2014 Venezuelan protests in a reduced form, with a redirect left. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The nominator's -- and the implied PROD-installing Wikipedian's -- characterization of the media coverage -- subdued by the similar but bloodier events in Kiev, Ukraine, where many more people have been killed -- is unfair. The death of this beauty queen, regional pageant winner but for an entire state of the country, not for a locality, as the nominator is trying to misportray -- made big impact on people worldwide, as evidenced by the RSes used for the article. Our own coverage of 2014 Venezuelan protests is very inadequate in terms of media. The BLP in question at least includes very evocative photographs from Valencia (her home town, a city of some 2 million people, third largest in Venezuela) are not matched by anything we have been able to gather for Wikimedia Commons. Even the es.wikipedia.org images used locally are completely lame and portray an earlier, peaceful time of gatherings. She may have not been notable technically, but she was assassinated, picked out for the killing, to the back of the head. It is that aspect of it that is troubling above and beyond her human tragedy. Not only that, the news was reported in a sustained way in Spain and Mexico, both on the day of the shooting, and on the day of her dying. I purposefully used sources from Mexico, Spain, and Poland, to support that point -- that her killing is notable. --Mareklug talk 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This notable article already has Spanish and Portuguese interwiki. Whereas the Spanish article has issues, the Portuguese one does not. True, it is but a stub, but it is sourced by a the leading daily from Brazil's southern Paraná state, the part of Brazil which is about as far away from Venezuela as it is possible to be: it borders on Paraguay and Argentina. This is yet another brick in the wall of shoring up the case that the article on our wiki is notable, and the death is notable, as in being of world-wide interest in the top media, and that we should not be getting rid of it. Please look at all of Wikipedia, and ask yourselves: am I being local-centric by dissing the importance of this event, this BLP, its sourcing, its linked media, its interwiki links? --Mareklug talk 13:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the fact that there are (currently) articles about this woman on other language Wikipedia is wholly irrelevant. A minor event getting minor coverage around the world, in this age of globalisation, also means nothing. You need to show this woman (and not her death) has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. GiantSnowman 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your spin on it. All I have to document is that her death was an assassination, and that it is part of the terror in Venezuela which is being underreported in the USA/UK. Her career as Miss Turismo de Carabobo is irrelevant, and your fixing on THAT notability misses the point. --Mareklug talk 13:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it eligible for speedy keep? And again, how is her death/assiaination notable? GiantSnowman 13:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I serve to edify and educate, so let me spell it out for you: In total, nine young men were injured in the protest that Genesis Carmona participated.. Motorcyclists arrive, shoot one person mortally in the back of the head, no one else shot dead. What do you think it means? To me is speaks volumes: Targetted killing by the goons supporting president Nicolas Maduro, deliberately arranged to happen in order to terrorize people, common people, and have them stay home. You might not know that beauty pageant queening is a major national sport in Venezuela, as is cosmetic surgery to augment just about everything, starting with breasts, ending on feet. And, it would make sense that a regional beauty queen would be far more expendable for this aim, than some national one, present or a has-been, resident in the capital Caracas. The goons are anxious to suppress the protests, spreading now to other cities, and what better way to trigger the imaginations of the common man and woman, than assassinate a regional beauty pageant winner? And why speedy keep? Because, you, my dear fellow friend, in your cluenessness followed the letter of the policy of notability without regard to the meaning of the events that transpired. It is not the fact that she was a regional beauty queen that matters here, obviously. See the forest, not the trees. --Mareklug talk 14:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasons for a speedy keep decision are: "1 The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." You know, you could have read it yourself. But linking without understanding seems to be a pervasive malady of Wikipedia debates, and even administrators don't seem to be immune to it. We live in sad times. --Mareklug talk 14:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, how is this eligible for a speedy keep? Has the nominator withdrawn the nominaton? No. Has the nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion? No. GiantSnowman 19:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because the nominator has advanced a deletion argument you disagree with, does not mean they have failed to advance a deletion argument. Reyk YO! 22:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more or less per nom. The theory of notability expressed here is pretty much the poster's invention/imagination, unsupported by reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A point of order. WP:BLP1E clearly states: The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared to this policy (WP:BLP1E). Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. This is not a BLP (the person is dead), and it is not a biography of a low-profile individual, as it is a beauty pageant winner, and because of that, articles about her death are plentiful and sustained, not to omit, worldwide. Basically, the nomination fails on technicalities, not just one, but two. --Mareklug talk 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and the obvious BLP violations in the rant a few paragraphs previous should be oversighted. Unverified conspiracy theories as to why she was targeted do not confer notability. Stalwart111 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 1E (I prodded this originally), but I'll take a merge per SmartSE since her name gets plenty of hits, but one can't possibly argue that she's like Mohamed Bouazizi, for instance. I'm not going to address all of Mareklug's points (some of them are prima facie ridiculous), but the wikilawyering doesn't work if one doesn't know the wikilaw well: of course 1E applies--see WP:BDP--since the person is very recently deceased. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys are very complacent; how come it is so hard to get off the butt and dereference our own RSes. Here is one: http://www.infobae.com/2014/02/19/1544839-murio-la-reina-belleza-atacada-las-milicias-chavistas -- go to the image with yellow ovals all over it. Caption, translated: "He who shot Génesis Carmona, the Venezuelan beauty queen who was shot in the head". For those without net access, it is a sharp telephoto shot of a street scene, and the yellow oval contain, among others, a goon with two hands on a pistol, in classical aiming position. She was ASSASSINATED, the picture proves it; it was not a random fly-by bullet. And you want this "rant" oversighted, Mr. Very Thorough Wikipedian? --17:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • More info from RSes "Por qué las milicias chavistas atacaron a la reina de belleza [trans. "Why did the (Chavismo|chávista) militias attack the beauty Queen"]". infobae (in Spanish). Buenos Aires, Argentina. 19 February 2014. Retrieved 21 February 2014. --Mareklug talk 18:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now have a zh.wikipedia.org (Mandarin Chinese) interwiki. Our article continues to be the only one that is not a stub but on its way to GA nom. --Mareklug talk 18:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your optimism is infectious, Mareklug. Good luck with the GA review. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would help if the nom would just ...drop it. Thank you for your kind words of support. I hope to infect with severe morbidity. :) --Mareklug talk 19:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What do you mean, "drop it"? I am not the one annoyingly pushing a point - that's you. You'll note that the only editor who, so far, believes in the article notability is...you! Many others agree with me to delete and/or merge. GiantSnowman 19:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's wait and see how this story develops. Our discussion on this page is only twelve hours old. I see coverage in the New York Times and the Daily Mail. This item is similar to the Mónica Spear story. - GroveGuy (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One, "let's wait" violates WP:CRYSTAL. Two, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. GiantSnowman 22:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three, Spear is independently notable (independent of her death), since she was a telenovela actress for seven years and a Miss Venezuala--not an aspiring model with a regional non-notable pageant title. This subject is notable only for her death. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Carmona had been Miss Venezuela, she would probably be assured notability. She was not Miss Venezuela, she held a regional beauty title in Venezeula, that is not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This bear repeating, since it is not sinking it: It is irrelevant how notable a beauty queen she was.. The New York Times writes in plain English in the RS piece we are now sourcing, and even the deletionist pile-on crowd and nominator no doubt will have no problem assimilating: Genesis Carmona, who was crowned Miss Tourism 2013 from her home state, Carabobo, quickly became the face of the growing student protest movement as news of her death on Wednesday spread across social media networks. That means that her death has galvanized people, not only in Venezuela, not only in the State of Carababo (where she was plenty important to THEM), not only in the 2-million soul Valencia (where is is even more important to the local population's self-image). In sum, relent already. Deleting this article would be pointless, stupid, and uncalled for. Go, delete some self-promo by a Third World one-person web design house. --Mareklug talk 00:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Mr. PROD, I love how the circumstances have come full circle, biting you in the proverbial wikiass: You write above: but one can't possibly argue that she's like Mohamed Bouazizi. That is your oblivious, patent WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL, not to omit, a dismal and complete failure to exhibit WP:COMMON, never mind exhibit a scintilla of knowledge of Venezuela (I am a member of the Venezuela WikiProject). The New York Times, a Reliable Source that closes this sub-discussion in my favor has stated already that she damn is. --Mareklug talk 00:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:BLP1E can not apply here as the person is no longer living but seeing that I can see no notability outside of her death it fails per one event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles. Did you disregard or did you consider the New York Times characterization of the aftermath of her death around the world? --Mareklug talk 02:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice the word "may" in that sentence, note how it does not say "even relatively minor participants require their own articles". So far there has been no evidence that her death had any major impact on the protests or their goals. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the article could be renamed to Killing of Génesis Carmona. If John and Lorena Bobbitt can have their own article then surely this case deserve its own article too. Americans might find Bobbitt's penis intrinsically notable just because it was cut in the old U.S. of A. and who cares about what goes on in Venezuela. The rest of the world will probably think that this killing is a more important thing. Contact Basemetal here 10:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:WAX, every article is different when it comes to an AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has become a major figure in Venezuelan politics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - per beauty pageant and politics.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Death of Génesis Carmona. Not notable before her death, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we try to claim her death hasn't received significant coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable just for having been shot by a policeman in a roiling, unstable third world country if she isn't notable in her own right. Quis separabit? 01:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are seeing the massive amount of coverage, halfway around the world, in some of the most recognized publications around, right? Press censorship in Indonesia was terrible, but that doesn't make Murder of Udin any less notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but, with all due respect to Carmona, whose death saddened me when I read about it (she was young enough to be my daughter), Udin was a journalist, which probably makes his killing more notable. If Carmona had been an activist before the incident then there might be a more compelling reason for including her death as an article as Death of Génesis Carmona. Quis separabit? 01:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what were John and Lorena Bobbitt before Lorena cut off John's penis? But those two are notable enough to have their own article right? But Génesis Carmona isnt? Contact Basemetal here 02:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am striking my comment but not voting keep because I am not sure. I understand your points, but aren't we going down a possibly slippery slope? Is anyone/everyone who gets shot or killed in a political demonstration, rally, or even more serious, an uprising, necessarily notable per se if they have any kind of public profile (like Carmona's beauty pageant)? I don't want an article for every IRA or white supremacist or Islamist terrorist, for example. Respectfully, Quis separabit? 02:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wait--Crisco et al., the woman's been dead for three days and she's already a symbol of something? Of course there's worldwide coverage: beauty queen gets killed. Basemetal, I think there's a considerable difference between the case of the Bobbitts and this, if only because there was a court case, and an aftermath including reality TV and t-shirts. So, WP:NOTNEWS, for now. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've said that she was a symbol of something. I just said that she has received a considerable amount of coverage, more so than the x thousand (million?) people who died on the same day she did. Whether or not this death ultimately becomes a symbol of something depends on how people treat it in the (near?) future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Ok how about Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. There was no court case. She was killed in a demonstration she wasn't even taking part in. How is that case different? Contact Basemetal here 06:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Quis separabit?: I understand your point of the slippery slope. But the slippery slope argument cuts both ways. There is also the slippery slope of deletions. A slippery slope that goes from perfectly legitimate deletions to unwarranted ones as in this case. Let me think about this for a bit and try and see if I can come up with a reasonable argument how we deal with slippery slopes. Regarding Drmies's argument: He doesn't like my comparison with the Bobbitts because there was a court case. What does the court case have to do with this? They're in WP because of the news coverage. I remember about the time the Bobbitt affair occurred Time mentioned something 10 cases of wives cutting their husband's penis and there were court cases in all those cases and they're not in WP. Why? Because there was no coverage. It is the coverage that determines if something is or not notable. Has got nothing to do with whether there was a court case or not. But if you're really sensitive to the court case argument: look then at the case of the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan where there was no court case. See how analogous it is with this case. Contact Basemetal here 06:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I'm not swayed by arguments that because something exists, other similar articles "deserve" their place in Wikipedia. But Basemetal's is a particularly good example of how to argue such a point without the normal "x exists so y should too". That all said, I see this case as very different to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. In that case, she was watching the protests, wasn't actively involved in them but was shot by a militia member and the shooting of an innocent bystander became the story. The counter-claim by the government fed that story. So you actually have government representatives officially commenting on her death which, I think, confers a higher level of notability. In this instance, the subject was participating in the protests, they turned violent and she was killed. Let us not all be swayed by the completely unverified claims that this was a political assassination. That claim is not at all supported by reliable sources. If it were, this would be a different story. Yes, there's coverage but it is almost entirely about her "one event" (her death, unfortunately). Even the supporters of this article have urged us to ignore her status as a beauty contest participant. That would be sensible anyway, even if we were talking about a significant award, but winning a regional "miss tourism" award? I'm just not seeing it. Stalwart111 07:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Basemetal: I really never heard of Neda Agha-Soltan or knew about an article about her. I perused it briefly to reply. It seems to have a lot of info but if the Carmona article is deleted and you believe this is unequal or unfair then you can always AFD the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan article. I am not really a deletionist by nature although I do sometimes get on my high horse about something that sets me off. Carmona doesn't set me off in that I wouldn't have initiated the AFD. It's a tragedy that a young woman was killed by negligent shooting or worse, although I would be inclined to doubt that her death was "a political assassination", as she was not an influential person or any sort of politician, and most likely was not well known even in Venezuela outside her own province.
If there is/were any credible evidence she was targeted, then that would make her death instantly notable though, IMO. In the event the Carmona article is, in fact, deleted, we can always redirect a good chunk of it to the 2014 Venezuelan protests article as suggested at the top of this AFD by Giant Snowman (the AFD initiator), which may end up a "no consensus", but I'm not sure about that.
Respectfully, Quis separabit? 07:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Quis separabit?: I'm sorry I didn't make my point clear. I do not think it would be appropriate to delete the article about the Neda Agha-Soltan case. I think it is a very good think Wikipedia has an article about that case (and neither do I think the article about the Bobbitts' case should be deleted, again it is appropriate that there be a Wikipedia article dealing with that case). My point had nothing to do with "deserts". No one deserves to have an article in Wikipedia. The main focus should be the readers of Wikipedia. Would theylegitimately like, are they legitimately entitled to find a place where verifiable and reliable information can be had on either case. In my opinion without any doubt. And I think the same goes for Génesis Carmona. I think from time to time deletionists lose track of the big picture, which is the purpose of Wikipedia, and get lost in intricate arguments about notability and news worthiness. As everyone works through in their own mind the merits of Génesis Carmona being kept or not, they should ask themselves: are readers going to be satisfied with a passing mention in 2014 Venezuelan protests or is it legitimate on their part to want to find more about this person in Wikipedia, given the coverage that this person's death has received. A Génesis Carmona article, in whatever shape and whatever you call it, is the natural place they would turn to and the appropriate place where new information can be added.Contact Basemetal here 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Basemetal: Thanks for clarifying. Just to point out again - I do not consider myself "a deletionist" and have no instinct towards deleting as opposed to keeping contested articles. It all depends upon the circumstances of each individual case, as it should do. Yours, Quis separabit? 13:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And my commentary was based on your comment, "If John and Lorena Bobbitt can have their own article then surely this case deserve its own article too." Thus the issue of "deserves". But as I said, I understand where you're coming from - I think we just disagree on the application of WP:BLP1E. Stalwart111 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A difference is that the Bobbitt article demonstrates that they have enduring coverage: this academic journal article article from 1996 is cited as #27 (although from an aggregator with which I'm not familiar), and citations #8-10 appear to be from a book. Note that WP:BLP1E generally prohibits articles on someone who generally remains a low-profile individual — when you're the subject of dead-tree publications years after the event, you're not remaining a low-profile individual. Nobody's presented evidence that Carmona has previously gotten extended coverage in this kind of sources, and WP:BALL says that we can't assume that she will. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Stalwart111: You got me there :) I guess I was using "deserves" as an atheist may use "God" in a sentence, as a kind of shorthand :) I meant if the merits of the case are the same in this and that case. You notice in the case of G. C. I was talking of the case "deserving" an article not the person, although it seems I wasn't so careful with the Bobbitts. So, good catch! Contact Basemetal here 11:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend: Oh God! This is getting more and more Byzantine by the day. The Bobbitt incident occurred in 1993 and the article was created in 2003. Of course Wikipedia itself was only created in 2001. Is the Bobbitt case now to be treated as WP jurisprudence? Is the "Bobbitt interval" of ten years now necessary or just sufficient to warrant the creation of an article if the case still has notoriety? In the case of Neda Agha-Soltan the article was created (surprise!) the very same year as the incident. Apparently in that case everyone did think they had a crystal ball! Why did they? Maybe they should have waited until 2019 to create the article (if anyone by that time still remembered the case and it was deemed important). So I guess you are proposing that the creation of the G. C. article be delayed by 10 years. See ya all in 2024. This is the problem with arguing by analogy. Yet there's really no other methodology than the argument by analogy in this sort of debate. It's not like we have an axiomatic or a "natural law" type system in WP to let us decide such cases. (Maybe that will come some day :) If you present two cases and try to argue that on the merits of the similarities between them they should be treated the same, there's bound to be someone who, like you, will focus precisely on the differences to argue that the analogy is invalid. Without of course explaining why the differences are the important thing. But then again you didn't explain why the differences were not important. We can go on this merry way for some time. Maybe that'll keep us all busy till 2024 :) Contact Basemetal here 11:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Singular unfortunate event that has been duplicated many times in Venezuela. This death wasn't about her politics, it was just happenstance that is covered because she is pretty.Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is no more substantial than mine, that she was targeted for assassination, in order to terrorize the average Joe and Jane in Valencia, and make people stay at home as opposed to get out and demonstrate. Classic terror. Look at the picture caught by an Argentinean photo-reporter with a sharp telephoto lens (the one with 4 yellow ovals drawn all over it), already referenced in the article. The assassin is standing there in a classic shooting position, hands extended in front of him, golding a gun, aiming deliberately at her. And no one else was killed during that demonstration. --Mareklug talk 14:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The assassin is standing there in a classic shooting position, hands extended in front of him, golding a gun, aiming deliberately at her. And no one else was killed during that demonstration" -- if you can source and prove all that then you may have a colorable claim that Carmona was assassinated and not just the victim of a stray bullet. Quis separabit? 15:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these bits of info are already sourced in the article, albeit in non-English sources. Use translate.google.com, and zero in on the Argentinian sources (for the picture and for the no one else killed, 9 wounded). --Mareklugtalk 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the opinions of Dennis Brown and you are not equally substantial. You're making a statement that is hard to prove, and can't be proven from a picture. You'd have to prove not just that some shooter deliberately aimed at her, but that she was deliberately targeted because of who she was--not just someone in a demonstration, but someone whose death would be deemed of political advantage. I don't see how you could ever prove that from a couple of yellow circles. "Random killing" doesn't mean "random shot". Drmies (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, well stated. I didn't mean to fudge on the requirements out of an unduly sympathetic case of a young woman killed so horribly, but at the same time I was/am leery and far from an expert about what constitutes an assassination. Quis separabit? 04:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: So what? In my opinion WP should not distinguish between kinds of notoriety. People gain notoriety for all different kinds of reasons. If in this case her looks played a part in her case gaining notoriety that's how the real world works. Similarly WP should not distinguish between "good" notoriety and "bad" notoriety. Very bad people have articles about them in WP and, if their cases have gained notoriety, then that's how it should be. So the important question is in my opinion: does or doesn't this case have notoriety? Are there reliable sources? Are the statements made in the article verifiable? Let's focus on the quality of the sources. Contact Basemetal here 11:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of solid coverage from independent sources — all we have are primary sources, with nothing being chronologically independent of the incident in question. We need secondary sources for notability: books, major websites, academic journals, news sources that address the incident as a past event rather than as news. Whether or not she were targeted for assassination is completely irrelevant to the absence of secondary sources: these are not the kinds of sources that Britannica would use. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Here is a secondary source, analysis from Argentina, that was already in the article when you wrote the above: http://www.infobae.com/2014/02/19/1544802-por-que-las-milicias-chavistas-atacaron-la-reina-belleza. The New York Times piece also present, also qualifies, as it contains analysis and the call of Valencia's mayor for an investigation of who was behind the murder: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/venezuelan-beauty-queen-is-among-protesters-killed/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Basically, deleting this article instead of working on it is bad Wikipedia behavior. --Mareklug talk 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Here is a secondary source, NPR analysis, which has not been added to the article yet: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/20/280019048/in-venezuela-another-beauty-queens-death-adds-to-anger --Mareklug talk 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Infobae and NPR are not chronologically independent: they're written at the time of the incident, and part of the initial reaction to the incident, rather than being examinations of the situation based on the initial reactions. This is the kind of thing that gets studied in secondary sources, not in tertiary; for example, someone writing a Ph.D. dissertation in the future will examine this kind of publication in order to examine reactions at the time, not in order to get an impression of the theory or as part of a literature review. I cannot comment on the Times thing, since my browser won't open it. The point is that these are not stable sources viewing the incident from afar, and encyclopedias are written on stable sources viewing incidents from afar. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What seems to be a moving target are the criteria people use for this or that article. I thought the sources needed to be reliable and the topic have notoriety. Now it seems Nyttend has discovered they also have to be "stable sources viewing the incident from afar". He discovered they have to be sources that "someone writing a Ph.D. dissertation in the future will examine [...] in order to get an impression of the theory or as part of a literature review". So here you have another problem of this type of debate: people seeming to make up the rules as they go along to justify a conclusion they've already reached long before. That tends to make such debates pointless. Please take a look at other articles on a similar kind of topic and decide for yourself if the sources used to establish the notoriety of the topic and the viability of the article indeed always are "stable sources viewing the incident from afar" and sources that "someone writing a Ph.D. disseration in the future will examine etc." Note I'm open to the examination of the rules I've taken into account and whether I've discovered them progressively under the carpet at the appropriate moment in order to basically keep justifying my first position. Contact Basemetal here 13:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: New section World reaction and reaction in Venezuela is meant to accrue the growing reaction to and the growing influence of Génesis Carmona's assassination. Please expand with new material, as events and their reporting by Reliable Sources warrant. I believe President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro has addressed her death in a speech, but that info is not in the article. Stuff like that. --Mareklug talk 14:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  A comment to the closing admin → If the decision is to merge and redirect, I will copy the article at that time to my user space and keep working on RSing it. If the decision is to delete, please userify Génesis Carmona in my user space, User:Mareklug, per usual custom, as I wrote nearly 100% of it and the notability of this BLP/death event is a moving target, with RSes coming on line, and possibly new revelations and media. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 04:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfying it is going to be problematic as BLP is a concern here. You can't just copy it, via the license, and merging/userfying into two different places is problematic as well. I count 19 comments here by you, perhaps WP:BLUDGEON would be worth reading. I think you may be a bit too invested in the outcome of the article. Passion is one thing, obsession is another. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The subject is dead, therefore BLP rules do not apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are mistaken. BLP covers recently deceased people the same as living. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where does it say that? I have always thought that BLP stood for Biographies of Living People. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Answered my own question, but I do not see how this person's death is questionable as it has been confirmed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • You need to read the policy, the WP:BDP section in particular. After death, BLP covers them from 6 months to 2 years, depending on the death. The purpose is to protect the survivors. The policy is quite clear on this, and this is a textbook example of why the policy exists. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This person was only killed a week ago. Trying to claim that we can know there is not long-term coverage is bizarre. What we do know is they have been well covered in multiple countries. I can see arguments for making the article explicitly on Carmona's death, but I do not think there is a good argument to entirely destroy the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Death of Génesis Carmona She is now the face of the 2014 Venezuelan protests similar to the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan.--Theparties (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Theparties: I have reverted your page move; there is no community consensus yet, we need to wait until after the AFD has finished. GiantSnowman 12:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Smartse, WP:BLP1E, WP:TOOSOON. I've made a cleanup pass through the article and, honestly, what's here could be collapsed into a single paragraph without losing any important information. We can revist if coverage of the story continues to develop, or if the investigation and/or trial generates significant coverage. Second choice would be delete. Garamond Lethet
    c     23:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per Crisco. I can't see the BLP1E issue. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC) FWIW, I heard of her death on NPR. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2014 (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/Génesis_Carmona&oldid=1220472540"