Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Scott

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. John254 00:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Scott

Rachel Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)


While I sympathize with her family, she is not notable other than being a victim of a violent crime the Columbine massacre. Most of the article consists of things her relatives have done subsequent to her death. If their actions are notable, they should have their own page(s) Cap'n Walker 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Not only being a victim of this tragic event but the first victim, I believe lends itself to notability. Shoessss |  Chat  16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The charity named for her certainly appears to be notable. Perhaps a move to the name of the charity might be in order, but not deletion. -Chunky Rice 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I somewhat agree with you on a move to the name of the charity, but it would need to be a completely separate article. An article entitled "Rachel Scott" should be about Rachel Scott, and Rachel Scott should be a notable person. This article should be deleted, and perhaps the original author can come up with a new article regarding the charity itself. Cap'n Walker 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand why. Why waste all the work that's already gone into it. A few minor edits are all that's needed to change the focus. -Chunky Rice 17:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, I believe they should be separate articles. Rachel Scott is not only the subject of several books. That in it self brings notoriety. The charity has also gained its own notoriety.Shoessss |  Chat  18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, it looks like those books were written by her parents, so i'm not sure if they can be considered independent of the subject of the article. -Chunky Rice 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to
    Rachel's Challenge Foundation and rearrange the article. Although I have enormous sympathy for the girl and her family, being the first to be shot in a random killing rampage doesn't make you more notable than the other victims. --Targeman 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep – per Shoesss. Victim history important for understanding the case, details not found (or would fit) within the scope of the Columbine article. Victim notability similar to the articles found in other famous mass murders such as Mary Ann Nichols. Notable figure and often referenced by faith based groups, who occasionally cite her refusal to deny her religious beliefs even knowing it would ultimately lead to her death. May actually still be referred to as a martyr by some, despite the witness testimony. Controversy surrounding her final words significant. Trippz 20:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rachel Scott merits this article, based on Wikipedia Notability requirements. She has indeed been the "subject of multiple published works...television and newspapers...". Just since the Va. Tech. Massacre, for example, Rachel Scott and the Rachel's Challenge Foundation were again mentioned repeatedly on major U.S. TV networks and magazines. As such, Wikipedia would certainly be deficient as an online reference work encyclopedia if it had no entry on this person. Secondly, if this article is deleted, then Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold should likewise be deleted, too. JGHowes talk - 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that reasoning holds up. Harris and Klebold are the perpetrators of the incident. They are fundamental to understanding what happened. Sadly, Scott is merely incidental. Who she was and her motivations have little bearing on the notable incident which led to her death. Of course, the activities, like the charity that have occurred after her death may impart some notability, but it would be a mistake to think that all victims who have received media attention are notable. Wikipedia is not a memorial, after all. -Chunky Rice 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right -Chunky Rice in that Rachel Scott would not be notable, if left to live out her life under normal circumstances and of course given that opportunity to do so. However, the circumstances that led to this discussion taken place are not normal ! She was the first victim in a tragedy that gained notoriety worldwide. She is the subject of numerous arterials of “Notable" authors and news agencies and lastly a “Foundation” is named in her memory. If this does not rise to the qualifications of NOTABILITY what does? Shoessss |  Chat  21:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misreading me. I've already argued to keep the article, given the notable charity established in her name. I'm merely stating the fact that the circumstances of her death alone do not make her notable, as is well established under the policy Wikipedia is not a memorial. -Chunky Rice 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure I would agree that victims are incidental in a crime. Who they were and their motivations often has a large bearing on the incident. In this case the perpetrators did seem to make a selection (in some cases, but not all) of who they would kill. In Rachel Scott's case she may have met some unfortunate criteria in the minds of two very diseased teenagers. Victim/Killer relationship and personalities is vital in understanding motive. You are correct that WP in not a memorial, however I agree with JGHowes that Rachel Scott mets Wikipedia Notability requirements. Trippz 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I just want to reitterate, once again, that I am not arguing for the deletion of this article. I am merely pointing out that the media attention received as a victim in a notable mass killing does not make a person notable. This is why we don't have articles for the vast majority of victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech shootings, 9/11, etc. So saying that she is notable because of that is simply a bad argument and not in line with Wikipedia policy. That's all I'm saying. -Chunky Rice 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Difficult one to remain neutral about. But her name does cross my path every once in a while and it is good there is an article about her when I can't place a person with a name that it mentioned. Trippz 21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keepDelete The article is a memorial to a young lady who was apparently a random victim of a pair of psycho killers, as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The foundation and the books are attempts by her family to memorialize her. I do not see sufficient reliable and independent references to satisfy
    WP:BIO. Trying to say the article is about the foundation seems unconvincing. Alternatively the article could be Smerged (reduced in length and merged) to the article on the Columbine shooting. Edison 02:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)(edited to add)Rachel Scott is somewhat famous as a victim and as a diarist, like Anne Frank. Her family has published books containing what the School Library Journal called fictionalized adaptations of her journals, in a review reprinted at Amazon,com [1]. The Time magazine reference in the article says that her father was receiving $1500 per speech about her. There are reports of "visions" foretelling the shooting which might make skeptics question the authenticity, but a Google search did not show much skepticism. I will change to a weak "keep" on the basis of the family's dogged publicity campaign and industry built around her in the form of the campaign against school violence. Edison 15:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I am sorryEdison can you point specifically to which area of the "WP:Criteria for notability of people" as posted below in Wikipedia the young lady does not fall into. Thanks for clarification. Shoessss |  Chat  03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
==WP:Criteria for notability of people==

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

  • The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.2
    • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
    • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.3
    • Once notability is established,
      primary sources
      may be used to add content.
  • The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
  • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
  • The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
  • Comment Your question suggests that she satisfies all the criteria. Note that satisfying one or more does not guarantee an article. Books written by and memorial foundations set up by her family are not independent. I do not see the "widely recognized contribution" or the "significant award or honors" other than memorial praise. The strongest claim would be name recognition, but after the passage of time it becomes hazy. edited to add: Her family has published adaptations of her diaries, and this lends her some degree of notability. Edison 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed, meeting one is not conclusive, but it does provide a reason for keep unless there is some real reason otherwise, and the more are met, the stronger the presumption. In this case the continued press coverage and interest is sufficient to justify the article. Over the barDGG (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep the article is quite good and she is notable for dying at Columbine. --PEAR (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The strong precedent has been that merely being a victim in a mass shooting or other killing, however notable the event is, does not confer inherent notability. Something more is needed, like playing an important role in ameliorating or exacerbating the violence. In this case, her family has made a case that she led an exemplary life, and they have published their version of her diaries, seeming to show prophetic visions, and have used her life and death as the basis for a foundation which has kept them busy giving presentations on preventing school violence. This is more than is true for most victims of notorious killings. Edison 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per
    ScarianTalk 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I agree especially with Brian Waterman's comments: like Anne Frank, Scott has left behind her a legacy in the form of diary entries, poems, short stories, and other writings, as well as stories that others have told about her, that have been read and have probably influenced thousands of people around the world. I have read literally hundreds of comments by people posted on various websites associated with her attesting to the influence her legacy has had on them. I myself have read much of her writings even though I am not American and have never been to the USA. Her family may have set up a foundation in her name and published her writings and books about her in order to memorialize her, but that is also true of Anne Frank as it was her father who had her diary published and who set up the Anne Frank-Fonds. What is important is the effect that an individual's legacy comes to have on the world. Regarding Edison's and Targeman's comments that Scott was a "random" victim, there is evidence that the killers targeted her deliberately. On one of the basement tapes, Klebold, who knew Scott personally, says: "I don't like Rachel and Jen. They're stuck up little bitches, f***ing Christian, godly little whores" (it can be heard on this webpage). It is highly likely that the Rachel he refers to is Scott. I strongly believe she deserves this Wikipedia article. Marsoult 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only person now who wants the article deleted is Cap'n Walker, who is evidently the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place. He is clearly outvoted. Can we please agree to keep it and end this discussion? Marsoult 16:45, 10 August 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Scott&oldid=1143900387"