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 delete. —Xyrael / 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Allen Smith[edit]

Nomination for Deletion A tragic story, but no encyclopedic notability is asserted, nor, I think, can it be asserted. There are thousands of new murder/non-negligent manslaughter investigations around the world every year, a large chunk of which go unsolved (in 2004, there were 16,137 cases in the United States, of which 62.6% were solved[1]). What makes this particular case so special? It happened on a cruise ship (so it got more media attention than the average killing because it reminds people of an Agatha Christie murder mystery), and it happened on the victim's honeymoon (an even better news story for readers or viewers relaxing at home). Plus the widow got upset with cruise line and caused a public relations crisis for them. That's about it. Even Taken separately from the investigation, none of the people involved are encyclopedically notable in their own right - they are not even notable on a local newspaper level. If the case was extraordinarily more horrible and infamous than the average or it led to some new law or change in police techniques or an important book - these effects would be encyclopedically notable. But it did not. Wikipedia is not a police records archive and it is not a news report database or an echo chamber for whatever the news media is reporting (much of which is not encyclopedically notable.). Bwithh 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do have to agree that yes, many people do die every year. Yet, this appears notable to me. It was covered by MSNBC [2] CNN's Larry King Live [3], CNN's Nancy Grace [4], and CBS News [5]. Those aren't local newspapers, which Bwithh claims that are the only ones interested in this story. --Pinkkeith 04:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal Actually I did not claim that. I said that the people taken out of the context of the investigation (that is, if the disappearance/killing had never happened), those people would not be notable even on a local newspaper level. (my poor use of "Even" as a sentence starter may have beeen a little confusing but still I don't see how it leads to the claim that Pinkkeith says I made) The missing person/victim ran a liquor store with his father. And please note my emphasis of ENCYCLOPEDIC notablility - Wikipedia's primary purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT a news report database. Again, newspapers, TV news shows, news websites - even ones with international scope and reputation (- carry much news (including news which is simply chosen for its sensationalistic qualities (Pinkkeith uses examples from MSNBC, CBS and CNN (Larry King Live!!) - US news networks are especially prone to sensationalism ) and non-news which is not encyclopedically notable. Media coverage is not sufficient cause for inclusion in Wikipedia. Can you tell me why this story is encyclopedically important? or even, why is it notable for major channel news coverage beyond its sensationalistic qualities? Bwithh 05:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Followup I'm sure these lines from WP:BIO (which remember, as I'm always hear, is a guideline) will be tossed at my nomination:

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events - but George Allen Smith did not achieve any renown or notoriety from dying/disappearing. Renown/notoriety relate to the widely celebrated/honoured or denounced/dishonoured skills/traits/feats of a person. Doesn't make sense to apply here.

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. - I believe the key phrase here is non-trivial. I submit that the subject selection of some or even much news coverage, even in major channels, is trivial by encyclopedic standards. The guy disappeared or was killed during his honeymoon on a cruise ship... that's it. not exactly edifying. Bwithh 05:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the key word is "multiple". WP:BIO clearly states that "Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage". Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You make some very sound and reasonable arguements. You are deleting this article based on notability of the individual. The real question is what makes one notable and what doesn't. It is all opinonated in my eyes, even the word "trivial" is an opinonated term. There are many articles that are based on information taken from media reports, Steve Irwin being the most notable and recent example. I don't think that what the source is and what the readers opinon of the source ought to be grounds to delete an article. In my eyes, if a story is reported by multiple national sources, it makes it notable. I would like to withdrawl my vote to keep and vote neutral on this nomination. I think it is notable but it is boarderline. --Pinkkeith 11:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just because the media reports it (because they choose to endlessly milk every mile out of tearjerkers rather than newsworthy stories say about genocide in the Sudan, or war in Uganda, or u.s. troops building schoolhouses and repairing sewers in Iraq) , doesn't make it or the person involved notable. Like JonBenet Ramsey (who was 1 of like 6000 girls gone missing and killed in 1996), George Allen Smith's death might be regrettable and worth mourning, but he's one of tens of thousands...he's a mere statistic and despite the sensationalist hype, he won't amount to much more than a statistic. Therefore, delete. —ExplorerCDT 06:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize of course with ExplorerCDT's view of the JonBenet case though I would also note that that case generated a substantial cultural criticism (still sensationalist) discourse which led to JonBenet being used (justifiably or not) as an icon of the ills of American society. This probably generated enough material for encyclopedic notability (one could argue that JonBenet is related to certain trends in US cultural commentary) - but in any case, far far more material than has been generated there than for the George Allen Smith case. I don't see how the Smith case has much potential at all for JonBenetesque commentary - the decline of morals in international waters? the crime rate on cruise ships? Bwithh 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Media circus \= encyclopedic notability (how do you type "does not equal"?). (Just a comment on JonBenet which ExplorerCDT brought up--perhaps that's different because her death engendered widespread discussion on kiddie beauty pageants, and as Bwithh notes, pertains to wider cultural trends.) Pan Dan 00:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The story is a sad but intriguing one. However, the article is full of speculation and conjecture, and thus is not encyclopaedic. If you laid out the pertinent facts end to end, you are down to about five lines:

1. Mr Smith disappeared on his honeymoon cruise.
2. Mr and Mrs Smith had an argument during the night of his disappearance
3. Blood was found in the couple's cabin and foul play is suspected
4. Mrs Smith received undisclosed settlement from the cruise company
5. Mr Smith's body was never found

An article on the wife would make a more interesting choice. At least there's the potential to flesh out or for her to become known for something else. Ohconfucius 08:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm gonna have to go with keep. This was fairly well covered in the media, whether we like it or not. It's hard to argue someone with 51,000 Google hits isn't notable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: "51,000 Google hits." If you actually click through, you see that there are only 182 hits, and then it says "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 182 already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included." I guess that means there are only 182 unique Google hits. Pan Dan 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Further Comment Most of the "51,000" hits are either regenerations of blog entries or AP-wire postings. Keeping it based on the churning of the same story over and over again is specious at best. Also, doesn't this violate Wikipedia's policy on memorials? —ExplorerCDT 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Google hits were not the only reason I voted to keep. The story was covered, as said above, by Larry King, MSNBC, CNN, etc. The guy clearly passes WP:BIO, whether we like it or not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are plenty of trivial (both encyclopedically and/or in general) trivial news stories on Larry King, MSNBC, CNN etc. WP:BIO is a guideline which calls for non-trivial coverage of people or that the person has renown or notoriety. As I have argued above, Allen doesn't fit into either requirementBwithh 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he achieved plenty of notoriety through the media coverage, nor do I find the references non-trivial, however much I wish the media's time had been focused elsewhere.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I don't think it's right to say he achieved "notoriety." According to dictionary.com, "notorious" means

1. widely and unfavorably known: a notorious gambler.

2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait: a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism.

I don't think either of these applies to Smith. Neither does "renown" (also mentioned in WP:BIO), which means "widespread and high repute; fame." Pan Dan 12:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what "notoriety" means. I've said my piece already. --Cúchullain ^t/c 20:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted the dictionary definition because I think it supports the thesis that Smith is not "notorious." Wasn't suggesting you don't know what it means. (Nor am I now suggesting that you were suggesting that I was suggesting that you don't know what it means.) Pan Dan 00:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Pan Dan 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now we have that cleared up. ;)--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Atlantic Gateways 03:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikinews or delete, it's not very notable and I feel that Wikipedia is not the right place for this information. bbx 23:57, 12 September 2006 (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.