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. Since Pha telegrapher has already added an entry on her to Open carry in the United States#Open carry demonstrations and events, the merge suggestions seem moot. I'm not, however, seeing enough support for a redirect to just redirect this title there. If anyone thinks that a redirect is desirable, nothing is stopping them from creating one; but I'd suggest that they consider the advisability of doing so, as a simple search for the name will lead readers to that article anyway. Deor (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meleanie Hain (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)

This person is not notable per WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ms. Hain got widespread news coverage from reliable sources that are not connected to her during her lifetime from bringing her gun to the soccer game and the sheriff's decision to revoke her concealed-carry permit. Because she was well known before her slaying, WP:CRIME doesn't apply. Her slaying also got widespread coverage from reliable sources that are not connected to her. And finally, the lawsuit that her estate was pursuing posthumously was reported in the news -- from reliable sources not connected to her. This clearly passes WP:GNG and she is notable for more than one event -- her initial dispute with the sheriff, her slaying and her posthumous lawsuit. Pha telegrapher (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have specified that I'm the person who started this article. I don't want anyone to think I'm hiding that. Pha telegrapher (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Boston globe, CBS, and USA today are reliable sources, and she had significant coverage. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT; amount of coverage irrelevant, since there is no lasting historical/social consequences. -No.Altenmann >t 21:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's something I'm missing here -- both of the people who say this should be deleted are citing the single-event guideline. But there were three events where she made national news: 1. Her initial dispute with the sheriff in 2008. 2. Her murder in 2009. 3. The dismissal of her estate's lawsuit in 2010. How is this one event? Pha telegrapher (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - plenty of reliable coverage. significant coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lots of news stories get lots of coverage. There is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Resolute 20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is one event, and clearly fails rules against Wikipedia being news. Her carrying a gun at an event is not a big enough event, and nothing else even comes close to being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing people saying this is one event, but I've yet to see an answer to the question, "How is this one event?" Her murder was a year apart from her carrying a gun at the soccer game, and although both involved guns, they were clearly different events. This person was not in the news once; she was repeatedly in the news for different events over a period of years. If she were only known for her dispute with the sheriff, I'd agree that she only deserves a paragraph in the "Open carry in the United States" article, but that's not the case. Pha telegrapher (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• She *is* only known for her dispute with the sheriff. What little notability she had was exclusively due to her carrying a gun to a children's soccer game. There is nothing else that sets her murder apart from a thousand others committed that year and which do not have, nor do they deserve, articles of their own. Resolute 14:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, the sheriff dispute is the only thing she's known for. The reports on her death rehash that story for another news cycle. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for explaining your positions better. I believe that the sum of these events add up to her being a noteworthy person, but I can see how reasonable people would disagree. Pha telegrapher (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - She is known only for the gun-totting soccer mom incident. As far as I can see, she disappeared from notice until she was shot by her husband. I can see the argument that this isn't just one event, but as a the notability guideline notes, we should treat them "with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one of those circumstances. Two separate news cycle appearances in don't add up to notability in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or perhaps Merge into the Open Carry in the United States Article - This is pretty much a single event and there is no lasting impact from it. Now, if a law about open carry were changed as a result I could see it being kept. I don't think there is enough here to be a stand-alone article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in this debate (and I apologize for not mentioning it sooner) is the irony in someone who became a prominent open-carry activist dying from gun violence. If she had been strangled, it would be a whole different story, but I think it's noteworthy that she died from the very instrument she'd argued would keep her safe. However, if the consensus is that this doesn't deserve its own article, I ask that we Merge it into Open Carry in the United States. I added references there for her initial dispute, her death and the posthumous lawsuit -- if this redirects there, anyone interested in learning more will be able to follow those links to learn the details. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. Pha telegrapher (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So was that your agenda for writing the article to begin with? As a POV/Advocacy pierce?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it wasn't. I was discussing this with a friend from high school and went to Wikipedia to check facts. When I didn't see an article on this, I decided to write it. Pha telegrapher (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looking at this sources and events, her notability before death was dubious at best, demonstrated by rather trivial back page coverage of that event. As such, it isn't enough to free her from the bonds of WP:BLP1E. Even now there are only two sources about the previous event, but what determines notability isn't the count of the sources, but rather the quality and whether it qualifies as significant coverage The murder does, and most murders would (and why we have WP:CRIME so that all are not included) but the permit event does not qualify. That there is a degree of novelty in a gun advocate dying at the hands of her gun toting husband doesn't convince, and in fact would raise NPOV issues, so it can't be considered a rationale to keep any part of the article. As such, the topic is ineligible for inclusion and should be deleted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Open Carry in the United States. Granted a single relatively simple sentence in the parent article is going to be the totality of the merge of this article. Agreeing with the novelty aspect, but not enough for enduring coverage of this one particular subject. Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a couple of lines and redirect to Open Carry in the United States as the most reasonable outcome. Cavarrone 06:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While I'm sure the merges are in the best of faith, I would be strongly against it. The novelty of a gun advocate getting shot is just that, novelty and doesn't represent any significant minority position. It would instead be a "ha, look at that, she should have been for gun control" WP:NPOV nightmare and violation. Controversial articles don't contain novelty for this reason, for it doesn't represent any mainstream or significant minority viewpoint, it is just a sad coincidence that shouldn't be used as a political wedge. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge some content with Open Carry in the United States. Seems like while her open carrying and her death received media attention, its notability was short lived and didn't receive significant enough coverage. As User:Dennis Brown said, her gun advocacy and death by firearm stands out, but there still lacks notability. Upjav (talk) 03:20, 24 July 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.