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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Shollar

[edit]

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

Fails ~~WP:BLP1E~~ WP:NOT#NEWS Ironholds (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and non notable per WP:BIO, although I should point out to Ironholds that it is not a BLP, and thus, cannot fail BLP1E. [[CharlieEchoTango]] 07:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps in desperate need of sourcing. But I have done research and found many sources that can be placed on the article by someone with more personal interest for this article. So I say keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I think a consensus has to be established on this Afd. And I will await that consensus.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ookay. So, "keep, I've found lots of sources. I'm not willing to show you these sources, even though that'd address the deletion concerns to some degree - I'll wait for consensus first". Just FYI, if I was the closing admin that'd be worth very, very little. If you provide the sources, it's easier. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This article is not "unsourced": several sources are already included in the article, albeit not in the preferred format. One of those sources, a 1995 New York Times article, does present a case for the notability of the crime:

"Fear swept across New Jersey following Mrs. Shollar's murder. Residents packed self-defense classes, task forces were set up statewide to study the carjacking dilemma and the Legislature stiffened penalties for the crime."[1]

Like BabbaQ, I also find quite a few other sources that could be used to bolster this article.[2][3] Among other things, it's a chapter in a Rutgers University Press book entitled Murdered in Jersey.[4] Having said all of this, it's not the subject who is notable, it's the crime. So we could consider renaming this article to Carjacking of Gail Shollar. Or alternatively we might consider condensing and merging the content to Carjacking#United States, where it might fit comfortably right after the paragraph about another early carjacking victim, Ruth Wahl. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RS. Chester Markel (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of reliable sources on their own does not allow something to pass through WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above by Arxiloxos, the sources show the lasting effects, and, by extension, lasting significance of the events. Chester Markel (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Arxiloxos. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (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.