Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracie Andrews

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. MuZemike 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracie Andrews

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where she, rather than the one event she gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. She committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While it is true that the victim's mother published a book about the event, I find no media coverage of the book, which currently has a sales ranking on Amazon of around 1.5 million; so it does not seem incredibly significant. Delete. Dominic·t 06:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This would fall afoul of WP:BLP1E were it not for the documentary. The documentary constitutes independent secondary sources and demonstrates that the "one event" had a notable (if minor) impact on pop culture. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading the importance of that documentary. She was covered in a small segment of TV documentary about an entirely different event, the murder of Shannon Matthews. The complete lack of any reference to Andrews in all of the summaries and reviews of the show suggests she only received a passing mention (cf. [1][2][3]). It hardly indicates that she is notable outside of this single event, nor that there are any adequately biographical sources on her. Dominic·t 06:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, are you referring to Blood on Her Hands, Tears, Lies and Videotapes, or both? They both sound like absolutely awful pieces of television but I'm not in a position to watch them myself and judge how they treat the subject matter; it sounds as though you haven't been able to either. In the absence of someone first-hand verifying that they're not relevant I'm still inclined to err on the side of keep. (Thanks for bringing your intelligence - and more information - to the debate, though.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was Tears, Lies and Videotapes that I was talking about, which doesn't seem too significant for this article. "Blood on Her Hands" (I forgot about that earlier) is indeed about Andrews, but upon inspection is not exactly a documentary, but an episode of the true crime TV series Real Crime. In any case, I do not believe that the airing of a show on TV is much different from the news sources. There is no body of work here to construct a biographical article out of. There is simply an event that made the news, and, while a tragedy, was of no lasting encyclopedic consequence for our purposes. Dominic·t 08:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, the documentary has no WIKI-page, hence not notable. It is possible to create the WIKI-page about the documentary and incorporate most of the information of this page into the new one. New seeker (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not having a Wikipedia page is not de facto evidence of non-notability, it's only evidence that no one has made a Wikipedia page yet. Kate (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I've alluded to elsewhere, I think there should be more discussion in WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E regarding what constitutes "significant coverage". As noted above, Andrews has been discussed in a documentary and a true crime television series. She has been mentioned in various books, the news coverage is persistent (e.g. [4], [5]), and she is still tabloid fodder ten years after the crimes. She is no John Hinckley, Jr., but I think she has received coverage that "ordinary murderers" don't receive. Location (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – she is certainly notable in the UK, and whilst there was 1 initial event there have been (and will continue to be) many subsequent events (initial search for killer where TA as the bereft girlfriend gave her version of events, trial, which was covered daily, sentencing, possible parole etc). As a relevant aside, the article for the victim Lee Harvey (who would indeed seem to be covered by the 1-event scenario) was merged to Tracie Andrews in a previous afd. Occuli (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case is infamous, it has received mountains of press coverage over a 12 year period.[6] We should focus the article entirely on the crime, her attempted cover-up, her conviction, and her appeal, as this is not a biography. See Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) for why this case meets notability criteria. I suggest renaming to Murder of Lee Harvey or Tracie Andrews "Road rage murder" case, or something along those lines. Fences&Windows 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for the article; the crime and the subsequent investigation and trial were prolonged and notable so good sources are there. However, remove the current name from the infobox and either explain or remove the reference to Jane Andrews (who doesn't have an article and is only mentioned briefly in two others). Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI do not read WP:BLP1E to mandate deletions of articles. It simply mandates that non-notable individuals not get biographies just because they play a role in a single notable event. Her notability does not rest in one event. Andrews may have originally become notable due to her involvement in one event but she is now notable for other events: her trial, her conviction, her sentence. She recently had an article in regards to surgery. [7]. Nolamgm (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2009 (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.