Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Marple-Cantrell

First deletion debate

From votes for deletion:

• Sarah_Marple-Cantrell doesn't seem to be anyone who warrants an encyclopedia entry. Timo Honkasalo 15:49 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • Apparently she was a twelve-year-old girl who shot herself. I suspect that's pretty unusual, even for Texas (although for some reason there seems to be a dearth of online news reports), and so therefore perhaps worthy of note. -- Oliver P. 16:53 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • I agree with Oliver. If she was on the news, then she's worth noting. I mean lets face it, we've had people on the news for less important things (read: the woman who claims to have had an affair with President Kennedy). Now, to my business in this page....Antonio Unhibited Martin
  • As about 60% of suicides in US are done with firearms, I see no reason to assume that they are not used by girls. As for the news, only thing Google could come up with was five hits, three of them pointing to same article in dallasnews.com. Local news, that is. - Timo Honkasalo 17:26 20 May 2003 (UTC)
    • Local news for local people? Well, Wikipedia is for everyone (even local people), and Wiki is not paper so we have room. -- Oliver P. 18:12 20 May 2003 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to Sarah and her family, Wikipedia is not a landscape for honorary pages. Every human death is significant, but wikipedia cannot compile the billions that occur. There exist elsewhere tribute pages for Sarah; those are more appropriate sites for Sarah. The wikipedia article should be deleted. Kingturtle 16:48 25 May 2003 (UTC)

Second deletion debate

From VfD: NOTE TO ADMINS: This article (Sarah Marple-Cantrell) was up for VfD in May 2003 and survived. Before deleting, please review the deletion policy. I can't find anything on the policy regarding re-nominated articles. Can article be renominated? I think deletion of this article should be delayed until an already written policy on this issue can be found or we can come up with a fair policy. Kingturtle 00:34, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You raise an excellent point. Please post here where this discussion will be held because I think there are some cases where re-nomination should be allowed and perhaps even encouraged. (For example, did Wikimemorial have critical mass back in May? Would the same people with the same facts about the article reach the same conclusion today?) Rossami 14:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There was no Wikimemorial back in May. In fact, from what I can tell, there still is no Wikimemorial for non 9/11 victims. Anthony DiPierro 17:46, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I supported deletion in May, and I still support it. But there don't appear to be ground rules for re-nominations. Maybe we should take this to the arbitration committee? Kingturtle 00:54, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is anyone actually disputing the fact that articles can be re-nominated? I voted keep, but if consensus is reached that this should be deleted (it hasn't been), then the fact that it was nominated before is irrelevant. We should try to reach consensus on the re-nomination issue before just taking it to the arbitration committee. That means discussion, a vote, etc. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In any case, the reason this is being held is most likely not due to it being a re-nomination but due to the fact that there was no consensus (3 keep, 5 wikimorial and delete, 2 delete) and that the majority vote is not possible at this time, since there is no wikimorial for this to be moved to. Anthony DiPierro 17:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I interpret the results as 7 Deletes, and 3 Keeps. The info should be removed from Wikipedia and to another host. That is why I raise this question about process. Kingturtle 01:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually one of the 2 deletes was an extra vote from someone who voted wikimorial and delete as well, so it would be 6 deletes, 3 keeps, which is not a concensus. And what other host are you going to move it to? Anthony DiPierro 01:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Sarah Marple-Cantrell Looks like a personal page SD6-Agent 13:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't look like a personal page. Anthony DiPierro 15:02, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • I feel really bad about this one. She's not an encyclopedia subject, but she certainly deserves to be remembered somewhere. Wikimorial and delete. Meelar 16:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • This was already listed in VfD back in May, 2003 (see Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell). I supported deletion, but there were not enough votes to delete. Kingturtle 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Not encyclopaedic - are we to have a page on every kid who's ever comitted suicide? What makes Sarah different? Delete. (Also support move to Wikimemorial) PMC 23:07, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. Isomorphic 01:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Twelve year old shooting herself with a firearm. Kinda spectacular. Enough for the news, enough for WP. See the that page's talk page for more argumentation. BL 03:23, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • move to wikimemorial and delete.--Jiang
  • move to wikimemorial and delete. Davodd 09:16, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wikimemorial and delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:15, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - we have articles about notable murder victims, we should have articles about notable suicide victims. I presume all the information in it is verifiable.—Eloquence 10:37, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • If we move it to Wikimemorial, then of course the page should redirect, so there would still be no actual deletion. Thus nobody has to wait for a vote (or a sysops) to get this move going! (I should note that Wikimemorial is not yet set up to handle more than just September 11. So we would have to edit, at the very least, its main page. That doesn't require an admin either.) -- Toby Bartels 07:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • I fail to see the consistency here. If we allow articles like Carlie Brucia and Samantha Runyon on Wikipedia, why not allow suicide victims who have for some reason received media attention? Someone researching mass media or suicide motives might find the article interesting. The fact that another Wikimedia project is planned that might have some overlap (personally I see a memorial as clearly distinct from an encyclopedia article) is not sufficient reason to start moving stuff arbitrarily over there, just like the existence of Wikiquote is hardly reason to get rid of all quotes within Wikipedia, or the existence of Wikibooks reason to eliminate all procedural knowledge.—Eloquence 07:34, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm not arguing in favour of such a move -- merely explaining what it would entail to do it right (a fair amount of work, but nothing requiring Sysop Superpowers). Actually if you get right down to it ... I vote to keep. Anybody that wants to get rid of it needs to start by making Wikimemorial hospitable to it -- and then bring up the move on Talk:Sarah Marple-Cantrell. -- Toby Bartels 03:34, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. wiki is not paper. Optim 20:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Del - there's nothing that makes this inherently more notable or historically relevant than any of the other thousands of suicides each year that aren't memorialized on Wikipedia. Bearcat 09:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are hundred's of thousands of sucides each year. If there MUST be an article, have a 'List of children who have committed suicide' and put her name in it, linking to an EXTERNAL site. Oberiko 16:32, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Be gone. Cute-girl-loving American cry babies: read an obituary, read Iraq casualties, read 25% HIV in Africa, read deaths out of food. P0lyglut 05:54, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Third deletion debate

• Delete: This girl is only notable thing is committing suicide. Though it is sad, are we gonna have a page for every person who commits suicide? That would be hundred of pages. Saopaulo1
  • Comment (?): So what if we have hundreds of pages? A hundred pages at 30kb a page is 3 megabytes. Geocities gives more than that much storage space away to anyone who asks for it. -MTh
• Keep. Her age makes a biiig difference. And what about the discussion about gun control? --Palapala 20:53, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
  • Com: What about it? Did this suicide have a significant effect on the debate / on policy? It's a sad case, but not evidently notable. (Maybe there could be a memorial Wiki akin to the 9/11 wiki?). Ianb 21:12, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • comment: putting "Sarah Marple-Cantrell" brings up exclusively this article and copies on Wikipedia clones. "Sarah Montgomery Marple-Cantrell" brings up the site listed as an external link as well. I see no reference to the case in a wider context. Ianb 23:02, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Com: Today Rep. Todd Tiahrt's son committed suicide at 16. Should he have an article about him? I'm not being cold, just being practical. If pages like this isnt deleted it opens up a flood gate of other people who commited suicides. Maybe a wikimemorial is needed for suicide victims. Saopaulo1
    • Com (their 2nd presumed one): YES... Open the floodgates! I have a feeling all the deletionists hang out on VFD; that's why we get a disproportionate number of delete votes on anything. -Mth
• Comment, this has been listed on VfD twice before on May 2003 and February 2004, both times the decision was to keep, but by a close margin. - SimonP 21:10, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Perhaps because of a change of vultures here at VfD or a change in Wikipedia itself, but the age at 13 doesn't really make that much notability. Unfortunately 13 year olds do commit suicide, though it is unusual for a girl to use a gun for it. I agree that her suicide brings up issues that society needs to address, and it's a poor testimony to Texas, but that discussion might be a topic for an encyclopedia, while this particular case does not, as written. If it read, "The suicide of Sarah Marple-Cantrell was instrumental in renewing calls for gun control in Texas after she...," it might have a chance, as that would indicate notability. The poor little girl by herself does not. Geogre 21:18, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is factual and I can see someone looking this up. - TB 22:06, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Simply shooting oneself would not make one notable enough for inclusion, but receiving a certain amount of attention for doing so would. I'd imagine that, given her age and the fact that it happened at school, it received a fair amount of attention, but if so the article says nothing of the sort. Everyking 23:54, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Com: I checked with Lexis Nexis and EBSCO using Marple-Cantrell, and found nothing. Saopaulo1
    • Com: Google finds almost nothing, once Wikipedia clones are filtered out. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - tragic yes, notable no. Adolescents attempt suicide with alarming frequency, and when doing so use firearms about half the time [1]. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. I support the idea of having a general WikiMemorial to send articles like this (having just the 9/11 one seems a bit US-centric to me). Niteowlneils 03:02, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Kp: Her age and gender actually make her fairly unique. Suicide statistics for 2003 in the U.S. aren't available yet, but the National Vital Statistics Report Deaths: Injuries 2001 report gives us an estimate.

• There were 30,622 suicides in 2001, of whom 16,869 used firearms. Firearm rate: 55.1%
• There were 5,950 suicides by females, of whom 2,111 used firearms. Firearm rate: 35.5%
• There were 272 suicides by youth aged 10-14 (both genders), of which 90 used firearms. Firearm rate: 33.1%
• Of the 272 suicides aged 10-14, 65 of the 272 were female, and 10 of these females were aged 10-12. Since being female and being aged 10-14 are both predictors for low firearm use, we expect very few of these 10 suicides to use firearms; at most perhaps 3.5 of the 10.

So, we expect fewer than 4 suicides of 12-year-old and younger girls through firearms, per year, of which this was one. This suicide occured at school, putting it in the larger context of school violence and safety. She was the child of a noted academic, which may be of interest to the gun control debate.

Sarah Marple-Cantrell is one of the 4 12-year-old youths who were the youngest at-school suicide victims listed in the National School Safety Center's School-Associated Violent Deaths Report (of which there was one male hanging, one female hanging, one male shooting, and one female shooting). The report covers the 1992-1993 school year to the present; both firearm suicides of 12-year-olds happened in the 2002-2003 school year, relatively recently. She may be the youngest female to have committed suicide with a firearm at a United States school.

So, while her death received little news attention, I believe she was noteworthy. Keep. -- Creidieki 10:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• If you add in enough specifics you can make anything seem unique. She was probably the only 12 year old girl to commit suicide in 2003 with a firearm in a school bathroom. Still, an adolescent committing suicide is tragic, but not notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and that is what this article is. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:33, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. bbx 13:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Tragic but non-noteworthy. Denni☯ 19:17, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
• Delete. I googled, and found only two hits that weren't Wikipedia mirrors. One was an old Excel spreadsheet from her school. The other was some girl's web diary. Isomorphic 19:32, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Sad, but not encyclopedic. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:23, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
• Delete. Tragic, but insignificant in the endless flow of time. Jeeves 23:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not noteworthy. Joyous 00:42, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Sets a precedent that we just don't need here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Extended the article a bit. Didn't say she was "notable" on a worldwide scale, but still think that her case is "symptomatic"; (and btw, I'd trade at least one Pokémon character for a human any time). --Palapala 17:18, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
• Del: Sad but ultimately not notable. Delete. Would be an appropriate candidate for a non 9/11 section of Wikimemorial if anyone ever creates that. Rossami 23:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Elf-friend 19:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I heard about this case in the news before I read it on Wikipedia. In my opinion, if I hear about something in the news before I read it on Wikipedia, it's probably significant to be in Wikipedia. -Mth
• Keep. Agree with MTH. Academic Challenger 00:24, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Postdlf 04:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Del. Non-notable. Obviously enormously significant for those close to them or the situation, but not to the body of WP users. BTW the claim that the influential family will make it significant, backed up by lk to father's WP bio, is a fraud; that bio is new, and he's an above-average academic but not notable. (Bio now on VfD as it deserves.) BTW, no evidence has been presented that they are or will become activists on this, and no respect is being paid to the probability that they just want to be left the f. alone, get on with their lives, and see to the now more urgent needs of their probable 1.3 other children. --Jerzy(t) 15:49, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
• Comment: voting as of 16:10, 2004 Jul 29: Del 14, Kp 6.

Add further votes below, unless you update the voting count.