Talk:Casey Anthony

Casey needs to have her own page

i am trying to spin off the "Death of Caylee Anthony" article to a new article on "Casey Anthony" ... currently "Casey Anthony" redirects to the death page. i strongly believe she's now and forever more is a celebrity pariah, and as such (even though she is evil^{[some people think]}) deserves her own page. in the news today, tomorrow, and into the future there is much discussing about Casey Anthony the person. this news and information doesn't belong in the death page. please discuss Sysrpl (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC) -Noted "[some people think]" on opinions. -Wikid77 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this passes WP:BIO1E. I've restored the redirect. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already news about Casey unrelated to the death of her child and outside the scope of death of her child, for example now its being reported Casey want to get pregnant again and have another child [1]. Tomorrow the big news will be where she will stay the night. There are also news items about offers to make her a porn star [2]. There are all unrelated to the death of her daughter and they are new items because Casey Anthony herself is now a celebrity pariah. Sysrpl (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. Not necessarily yet. We want to handle this pretty carefully, per WP:BLP and her being innocent of any crimes and so forth. "now its being reported Casey want to get pregnant again" is exactly and precisely the kind of stuff that we want to stay as far away from as possible (it should arguably not be allowed to exist even on this talk page, even with the ref, as I don't think that Fox News is a reliable source for anything much, but whatever). I'm not sure, but "notable as a pariah" even if true may be fundamentally incompatible with WP:BLP and we should consider taking a pass on that. At any rate, what's the hurry. We are an encyclopedia and not WikiNews, and we need to keep in mind "will people X years from now find this useful". Herostratus (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to point out is that one of the key goals of WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E is preserving a person's privacy. Given the tremendous amount of media coverage, not to mention the fact that the trial was broadcast live on national TV, preserving her privacy isn't a concern here. I think the article should be created, although given the vandalism and shoddy editing going on at the other article, it doesn't sound like editing this one will be a pleasant experience. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I support a separate Casey Anthony article. like it or not but this woman has recieved enough national and international coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Give it a little more time. Soon enough I suspect there will be book and movie deals and appearances on syndicated programming. Then it would seem to have moved beyond the single event notoriety. My76Strat ^talk 23:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated on the main article, looking at the Death of Caylee Anthony, "I don't feel that a separate article for her is needed. If this article were truly huge (and, really, it's not even big yet), then I'd see a reason for the split. But other than that? No. [Casey Anthony] is not notable outside of this case. And per WP:Notability, she is supposed to be in order to have her own article. Most of what is in [Death of Caylee Anthony] article would largely overlap in hers." Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if she does get her own article, it should be titled The Casey Anthony trial, or something like that. Flyer22 (talk)

From WP:BLP1E: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. This is clearly the case with Casey Anthony. The main article needs to be split anyway, and this is a good first step. --Tathar (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does the main article need to be split? It's not even big yet, judging it by WP:SIZE. It only looks big when glimpsing at the table of contents. When I clicked on the Death of Caylee Anthony article for the first time last week, the main thing I wondered was why the trial didn't have its own article, not Casey. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Using WP:BIO1E for this is pretty silly. It's like saying we should remove the entry on James Polk because all he's known for is being president of the United States. And now that the trial is over, and the rest of her life won't be spent in prison, I think it's about time that the information about Casey is removed from the case. Angryapathy (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Being President of the United States is not a single event. BLP1E is intended for just this kind of situation. We don't have separate articles on every murderer in a sensational trial, much less on every person acquitted of murder. If Ms. Anthony develops a public persona and gets media coverage for activities other than this case (not just the inevitable What ever happened to ... article), we can reconsider a separate article.--agr (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

U.S. presidents get articles because it is like "winning a major award" as an indication of individual notability. -Wikid77 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

She has received extensive coverage in dozens of reliable sources. That sounds like WP:GNG, plain and simple. Saying "she's just known for one event" ignores the fact that she has more coverage than Jonas Axeldal, who has his own article for playing professional soccer and nothing else. And the US president thing was an analogy: of course he did more than be president, but it's silly to say, "Well, he was just a President of the United States of America." And it's silly to say, "She just received more media coverage than 99.999% of the population." Angryapathy (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly feel that she should have not received any national news coverage in the first place. That's sensationalism and tabloid journalism at its best. The news coverage never should have left the state of Florida because we have court trials like this all the time, and the rest of the world doesn't really need to know about this. There's also the fact that the media has turned the Anthony neighborhood into some sort of shrine, we've turned the courtroom into a circus, and anyone who is actually supposed to be in either location is not really safe. The media has dragged her parents through a media circus unnecessarily at the worst possible time in their lives. I feel like to give her any coverage is to exacerbate the problem. I have no idea how this meshes with Wiki policy, but that's my two cents. I think the way the media handled this is deplorable.--Jp07 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But, Jp07, initially giving her media coverage was so that Caylee could get media coverage and many people could go out and help search for her. Sadly, we all now know that she was already dead. Not simply missing. Maybe that did not have to transcend into "national news coverage," but I don't see how that can be argued when trying to bring as much attention to a search as you can. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really not the media's job to do good; it's their job to keep people informed on things they need to know. Ideally, the media will be objective on everything. And even if they are trying to help out, helping out can be done within Florida. Inundating the community with gawkers from California and elsewhere is more of a hindrance than a help.--Jp07 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not really here nor there. While I agree that the media blew this case way out of proporation, we are in fact a tertiary source, and we take our cues from primary and secondary (AKA news) sources. Angryapathy (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of precedent and policy, I think it needs to be an ethical consideration. The information industry has a very large impact on what we do, say, and think, but I've had my say, so I'm going to leave it at that.--Jp07 (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not entirely in agreement with your argument about the media, Jp07. I understand what you're saying. But I feel that killers or potential killers, child molesters and pedophiles, rapists and, yes, missing people, are things that we should know about that. That's why the media reports on this all the time. Can you imagine if they never reported on serial killers, and people were left without warning that a serial killer may be loose in their city or neighborhood? But I like stated, I get the gist of what you are saying. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agree to have separate article to cover many events: When a person is initially tied to a murder case, but then gets coverage because of multiple other criminal charges or lawsuits, then it clearly goes beyond WP:BLP1E. With being on trial for murder, but convicted of false reports to police, plus having jail-house letters noted, and parents in the news, plus major news about a lawsuit with a nanny, then all those events are sufficient grounds for individual notability, even if being found "not guilty of murder" is not considered winning a major award. Also, in terms of wiki-logistics, any slurs or vandalism would be easier to spot and correct in a separate article under a person's name, rather than buried in a major-event article, where the text would be more difficult to proofread. Keep a separate bio-page, as a link within a short bio-section in the article "Death of Caylee Anthony". Create the separate article, quickly revert any hacks, and then ask an admin to protect the page. -Wikid77 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The convictions and everything else you stated have to do with the newly titled article: Casey Anthony trial. So I'm still not seeing how she has individual notability and needs a separate article yet. I also don't feel that anything about Casey Anthony should be taken out of the main article just to better accommodate this one (if it's created). All the stuff that is in the main article belongs there. If this article significantly overlaps, then oh well. That just shows she doesn't have much notability outside of this case, if any individual notability at all. Flyer22 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment AFAICT, she has no notability other than the Caylee case (people who get charged with check fraud do not get WP articles, for sure). BLP1E applies entirely as far as having a biography article. Collect (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

John Hinckley, Jr. has no notability beyond the Reagan assassination attempt. If you take another look at WP:BLP1E, it allows for articles in situations such as this. In fact, WP:BLP1E uses John Hinckley, Jr. as an example of where it's OK to have an article such as this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not even sure WP:BLP1E even means anything coherent that WP:NPF doesn't say in a better and more practical way. We have always had articles on people primarily known for one event, such as Richard Jewell or Monica Lewinsky or Jessica Lynch . BLP1E sounds good in theory, but it can't apply to very high profile events without making us look silly for redirecting these biographies to event articles, and we already have standards for low profile people other than the problematic pseudo-notability adjunct advice of BLP1E. Gigs (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment if the facts regarding Casey make the 'trial' article too long, then it would need to be split in two with one article focusing on the trial and one article focusing on Casey. --TimL (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• BLP1E (as a reason not to spin out a bio article) isn't even remotely applicable, here. It clearly states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose separate article - Apart from the murder trial then this person would be otherwise unknown, that is the spirit of BLP1E. If all you can say about this person is to give a brief bio/family history, then launch into nothing but the recently closed case, then a separate article is not warranted. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose article creation, for now - Casey Anthony isn't currently notable, outside of her trial. We don't create articles simply because it's possible; there has to be a reason for an article to be created. Wikipedia does not have a deadline and is not a newspaper. Facts about Casey Anthony that have been deemed "newsworthy" by news organizations are not necessarily encyclopedic. If she does something further to become notable, an article could be warranted. Currently, she hasn't done anything outside of the trial.  Chickenmonkey  21:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you ask anyone outside of the US, they won't have a clue who she is!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, that's not close to an accurate statement, although I oppose a separate article. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I still find it funny: "Besides the copious coverage and numerous reliable sources describing Casey Anthony, she hasn't done anything to warrant her own article." Angryapathy (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's funny about an accurate statement, such as this. Per policy:

"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

Casey Anthony has not done anything notable, beyond the context of a single event. If she does, then she could warrant her own article. Currently, everything about Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, and the event surrounding them can be documented in a single article. If that single article was too big, that could also be reason for an article on Casey Anthony being split. Currently, the article on the event is not large. Simply because we can create an article, that doesn't mean we should.  Chickenmonkey  22:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Those are your own rules. It has no basis in policy. WP:BLP1E specifically states you can have an article about a person known for one event if the event is significant and is widely covered by reliable sources which clearly the case here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What has no basis in policy? I specifically linked to the policies I was referencing. Yes, you are 100% correct that WP:BLP1E states, "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented, a separate biography may be appropriate." The operative word is "may". A separate biography may be appropriate. Yes, we "can" have an article, but "should" we? The case, here--as I see it--is that the event has been widely covered by reliable sources; that's why the event--being notable--has its own article. Casey Anthony, however, has not done anything notable beyond that single event, and the event article is not of a size that would warrant splitting an article specifically about her.  Chickenmonkey  23:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

In quoting BLP1E, you left out the example given, "as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." Political assassinations are another category of significance, because of their potential to change history. There are over 15,000 murders each year in the United States, and many more world wide, and this death hasn't even been established as a murder. Many attract great publicity for a while, but follow a predictable arc to obscurity. The editor who initially requested a separate article gave as a reason "I strongly believe she's now and forever more is a celebrity pariah, and as such (even though she is evil[some people think]) deserves her own page. in the news today, tomorrow, and into the future there is much discussing about Casey Anthony the person. this news and information doesn't belong in the death page." This is exactly the sort of response our BLP policy is intended to prevent. As long as Ms. Anthony is not seeking publicity on her own we should not be collecting information about her future activities. If that changes and she actively seeks publicity after her release, then she may well become notable in her own right. (See Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual) Until then our policy stands against a separate article.--agr (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What I am saying is that your final sentence has no basis in policy. In fact, you're arguing against policy. Length has nothing to do with notability, and even if did, there's plenty more to write about. But it's kind of hard to write good articles when we're wasting so much time arguing whether the article should even exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

From Policy (WP:BLP1E): "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Is Casey's role within the event substantial and well-documented? Yes. Is the coverage of her persistent in reliable sources? Yes. Article? No. Hence, funny. Angryapathy (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Three years and counting, with no end in sight.[3][4] As I pointed out previously, she will be notable for the rest of her life just like Hinckley. Why don't you want an article about her? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge - WP:ONEEVENT says, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." This is all I meant. I didn't say length had anything to do with notability. I was merely offering another possible scenario where it may be advisable to create an article on Casey Anthony (i.e. if the event article becomes too large, which it has not).

@Angryapathy - It is not an "If A, then B" situation. Just because Casey Anthony's role in the event was/is significant, that does not automatically call for an article to be created about her; it just means that it is possible. However, agr summed this entire thing up better than I did.  Chickenmonkey  02:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the user essay arg cites? If so, you should know that user essays have no standing and in no way should ever, ever overrule policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The essay I mentioned is referenced in the BLP policy itself, to clarify where the policy apples; see note 5. Anyway, it's not central to the argument I made.--agr (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

For one, I understand the role user essays play, on Wikipedia. Secondly, no, I was not referring to that essay; I was referring to agr's entire comment, which does not argue for the overrule of policy. Let's clarify some things: policy does not say Casey Anthony should have an article; policy says Casey Anthony, due to being a person who played a substantial role in a significant event, may warrant an article. Policy also says, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Currently, this is Casey Anthony. She has done nothing notable outside of the single event and has not been covered by reliable sources having done anything notable outside of the context of the single event.  Chickenmonkey  03:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Chickenmonkey and agr. I can't imagine Casey Anthony being notable for anything whatsoever besides this case. Her case is nowhere near analogous to the Hinckley/Reagan Assassination example, and therefore fails WP:BLP1E. She may do something in the future that warrants a separate article, but certainly not now, no matter how many RS continue to dwell on her(not much longer I suspect). As it stands now, she's not even a child murderer. The only other mention of her I can imagine in WP is here. Shirtwaist ☎ 10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Anthony will be notable for the rest of her life. (Assuming she lives a normal life-span, we have 50 more years of coverage to add.) Entire books are being written about her.[5][6] The thing is that there will be an article about her eventually. The only question is when. What's sad thing is that with all the time and energy being spent on this discussion, we could already be done with the article. Instead, it looks like we'll be discussing this for weeks/months/years to come until the inevitable happens. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Quest is right: we should stop discussing this between ourselves, because obviously we aren't going to convert each other to the other side. An RFC should be started to get outside opinions on this subject. Oh, and I should remember that sarcasm doesn't come across well in type. I am in full support of an article on Casey Anthony. Angryapathy (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Entire books are being written about her, in relation to the trial. Simply because something is verifiable doesn't mean it is notable. It is yet to be seen if she will remain a public figure, following this event. Exploiting her and her situation is exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia should avoid. Wikipedia does not have a deadline and will always be a work in progress. We will never be "done"; there's no reason to rush to create any article, especially one on a living person. If it is accurate that she will be notable for the rest of her life, an article can be created at a later date.  Chickenmonkey  22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to what one editor said above, WP:BLP1E does _not_ say that a separate article is "generally" appropriate. It says that it "may" be appropriate. I would say a big NO right now to a separate article, and wait until _after_ she becomes a porn star, reality tv-star, or whatever such that she clear merits a separate bio page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request

I understand that there is discussion going on as to whether or not Casey Anthony should have her own article, but in the meantime the redirect should read #Redirect [[Casey Anthony trial]] to avoid a double redirect. Ryan Vesey (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I attempted to do that...but saw that the page is currently locked. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Double redirect needs to be fixed promptly. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done, by User:Ronhjones -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should an article on Casey Anthony be created?

Should an article on Casey Anthony be created? Angryapathy (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support creation of article

1. The main sticking point of this dicussion prior to the RfC has been whether or not the subject, Casey Anthony, passes WP:BLP1E. While it is true that her notability is rooted on the death of her daughter and the subsequent trial, there has been extensive coverage about her. And as stated in WP:BLP1E (bolding added by me): If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981—a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. The event is significant, as indicated by the flurry of news coverage. Casey Anthony's role within the event is substantial, as many articles are not only written about the trial, but about Casey Anthony herself. And the coverage has been persistent for months. Policy aside, I believe common sense should dictate that the article should be created: there is a great number of articles in reliable sources about Casey Anthony. An article about her should be created. Angryapathy (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I support a creation of an Casey Anthony article. Clearly passing WP:BLP1E and with enough material available to make a good bio-article.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
3. It comes down to this: Is Casey Anthony, the person, likely to be covered in History books? Is this person likely to be biographed, autobiographed, or otherwise profiled in books? Is the person going to (continue to be) covered in newspapers, news radio, and televised news? The answer is clerly "yes", and is likely to be "yes" to just about everything mentioned above and more. That fact makes an article here a requirement, if for no other reason than completeness. Think about the damage to Wikipedia's reputation that is being done by preventing this high profile article from existing. — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
4. To my assessment, Casey Anthony is notable beyond any single event to not have an article. I acknowledge the events are related, but not isolated to a single event. My76Strat ^talk 01:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
5. Support an article at this time. There are new things being released that are having trouble being placed in the other article and I suspect even more to be seen soon. Even if this article starts as a stub, there is good reasons to start it. I see no harm in this and no vios to start this article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
6. Support an article at this time. BLP1E is not an issue because (1) she is notable for more than one event, as made clear by the outline below and the number of RSs which cover her unrelated to this murder trial; (2) because she is not a "low profile individual" and therefore fails the second prong of the BLP1E guideline; (3) BLP1E is just a guideline, and we have so much notable info on Casey Anthony for a good article that shouldn't be included in this type of "Death of" article; and (4) the existence of so many other articles on individuals equally or less notable than Anthony in similar circumstances (either found guilty, assumed guilty, or found innocent of high profile murders) either have their own articles or have articles with much biographical content in it which cannot be placed here; why would Anthony be treated so differently than other subjects of WP articles?LedRush (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support but not yet: Wait til there are more relevant news stories of things more particularly about her. It will become clear when the time is right. [Added later: I also think there is such animous against her, including at Wikipedia, that an NPOV article can NOT be created at this time. It probably would be an Attack page that could be speedily deleted.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but not yet - Agree with CarolMooreDC. There is a chance she may appear prominently in the news in the future (e.g. writing a book, reality show, etc). If and when that happens, an article would be justified. On the other hand, there is a chance that she will not appear in the news again, and she'll fade away into private life, in which case BLP1E applies, and the article should not be created. --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but not yet This is surely not the end of the "Casey Anthony" story. Mugginsx (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - She's received more coverage in RSs than 99.9% of people with bios on wikipedia. Her "one event" has been going on for several years, and still hasn't stopped. Let the article be created and then take it to AfD if someone feels it must be deleted. BLP doesn't matter, since the entire article will be over referenced. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I'm not going to repreat the points everyone else has already made. She has become sufficiently notorious to justify creating a biographical page. Why does Richard Jewell have his own page? The Casey Anthony trial was a bigger media circus than the Centennial Park Bombing, and Casey Anthony is much more well-known than Richard Jewell ever was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.177.66 (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Richard Jewell has article because he sued the heck out of major media companies and most of them settled and he made the media re-evaluate itself. (Something it has yet to do in Anthony case in places where perhaps it should. It's interesting to see the respect given Conrad Murray vs. hostility heaped on Anthony.) Note that Amanda Knox search also goes to Murder of Meredith Kercher. And few people are even familiar with the victim's name. The Timeline of Casey Anthony case right now is recording ongoing issues of note (and to a far lesser extent the Caylee article) and I think it will be clear when an article is needed. CarolMooreDC 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Conrad Murray case is completely different than the Casey Anthony case, and your comparing the two is pretty stupid. For one, Murray isn't being prosecuted for intentionally killing Michael Jackson, and most people don't believe that it was intentional. Casey Anthony, on the other hand, was being prosecuted for intentionally killing her daughter, and most people believe that she did. They have valid reasons for believing that. It's pretty easy to give more respect/sympathy to Murray for something that was an accident, while heaping a bunch of hostility on Anthony. 163.26.71.123 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

First, AnonymousIP, please be civil and don't call people "stupid." See WP:Civility. Murray was appropriately charged; as some WP:RS reveal, cooler heads believe Anthony was not and that police refused to sufficiently investigate the drowning/coverup theory and prosecutors refused to consider any deal with such a plea, because police/prosecutors wanted a big score. Obviously the jury, who saw all the evidence, did not think there was an intentional murder. Those who saw just evidence promoted by Nancy Grace type media hacks looking for someone people can focus their frustrations and hate on, did not provide all that evidence. It's wikipedia's job to do so in a WP:NPOV way. At this point the timeline article does; at some point soon the "death of" article will also. CarolMooreDC 14:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call you stupid. I called your comparison stupid. I'm allowed to do that civilly. Many believe Anthony was appropriately charged with murder. It's that she was overcharged -- the death penalty tag -- that a lot of those same people disagree with. Judging what the jurors have said, that is what truly lost the prosecution their case. That, and the jury's skewed interpretation of reasonable doubt. They apparently believe Anthony is guilty, but were uncomfortable sending her to death only based on circumstantial evidence. Your assertion that the jury did not think there was an intentional murder is counter to what the jury has said. Their comments have been very negative about her (some even implicate her). They obviously believe that a murder very likely took place, and don't appear to believe that Anthony had no part in her daughter's death. There are people like you who always want to blame Nancy Grace for those who believe Casey Anthony is guilty and/or hate her. But if you ask most people why they believe Casey Anthony is guilty, the ones who didn't just rely on what the media said, they will tell you why. And it has nothing to do with Nancy Grace. Anyway, the Timeline of Casey Anthony case article is not something I'm even compelled to read. I don't like reading long-ass lists. As for the other one, at least it is in prose. It's actually well put together and neutral. None of this non-neutral-ness you are asserting. You editors have even included a bit about Anthony's supporters, which is stupid. I know that it is not a trivial thing to include and balances things out, but her "marry me" supporters are stupid. 61.19.127.131 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose creation of article

1. Our policy is consistent; She has zero notability outside of this event - even if that event is stretched for some time. If you wish to violate the privacy of an individual please go and do it somewhere else :) Anything of historical importance can be recorded sufficiently in this article, about a notable event. There is an inconsistent, and silly, reading of BLP1E I sometimes see (which is appearing here) where people read it as meaning "if the person has lots of coverage then BLP1E does not apply". This is incorrect. The policy reads thus: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. The emphasis is mine; so far all sourcing and evidence presented is tied directly to this one event, and as such she is a private individual. If in the future she becomes a celebrity of some description or has notability beyond the event in question then is the point to reassess. This desire to lay bear the private lives of people is not at all in keeping with the core tenets of Wikipedia, and I counsel those urging for us to do so to take a moment to reassess in light of those tenets. BLP1E is explicit and clear, unfortunately, and so no matter what the RFC concludes you will also have to change the BLP1E policy first, because community policy overrides local consensus. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

strong oppose At the moment, as she was found not guilty, she is technically notable for having not murdered her child. I haven't murdered any children, either. May I have an entry? Maybe in the future she will become a reality TV star or what have you; for now, the story on the trial is enough. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like voting about things that to me appear completely clear in WP:Policy and guidelines - the woman is a one event notable, as per User:Errant's comments. A BLP under her name would be a report of the trial and the death of her daughter. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - If there's nothing to say about a person other than criticism or about their connection to a controversy, then an article on the controversy itself with a redir of the person's name is best. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And we already have an article on that "controversy" -- the main one. As can be seen from my placing the word in quotation marks, I don't think "controversy" is the right word. I stated before that not only would such an article (speaking of one about criticism/controversy) stray away from the death of Caylee Anthony and the trial, it would invite a lot of negativity being added to the article. It would essentially be WP:VICTIM. Flyer22 (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Since this has been reopened, I suppose I will place my opposition squarely in the "oppose" section, per: WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM.  Chickenmonkey  20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Just to point out that WP:Victim does not address at all people found not guilty of a crime where there was a victim. So at whatever point there is enough new info to support creating an article, WP:Victim would not stand in the way. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Casey Anthony is a victim in the homicide of her daughter. If you disagree with that, it is your opinion. I am not arguing that she is a victim, simply because she was found not guilty of a crime. If ever it is determined that her notability extends beyond a single event, no WP:VICTIM will obviously not stand in the way. That's beyond the point, however, of my belief that it currently stands in the way, due to the fact that her notability has not yet been determined to extend beyond a single event.  Chickenmonkey  19:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - I've given my reasons above, but I'll summarize here. WP:BLP1E exists for situations like this. "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." It goes on to mention exceptions where the event itself is significant, the example given being the attempted assassination of a major world leader. There is no such basis for an exception here. If Ms. Anthony takes steps in the future to become a high profile individual, we can revisit the question. In the meantime, we should follow BLP1E's advice.--agr (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You think that Anthony is a low profile individual?LedRush (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. As the term is used in BLP "a low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event." It's based on what she does, not what the media does. It's my understanding that Anthony has been incommunicado since she was released from jail. If she starts making a significant effort to put herself in the public eye, then we can reconsider the justification for an article. --agr (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Like when she gives an interview for $1.5 million or writes a book?LedRush (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd reserve any judgement until we see what she actually does, but, yes, those are the sorts of things what would take her out of the purview of BLP1E. --agr (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Right now, the only thing notable she's done (to the tabloids, maybe), beside being in a very public trial, is...hiding. Is that what WP BLP articles are being based on now? If so, I demand my own article for hiding...from telemarketers, Jehovah's Witnesses, and census takers! If BLP1E has any meaning, and relates directly to anything, it's this. Shirtwaist ☎ 05:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

You just had an RfC, why is there another one open now? Gigs (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What RfC are you referring to? Angryapathy (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The one at the top of this talk page started on 7 July 2011.--v/r - TP 20:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The only Request for Comment I see on this page is this one. If editors feel that the discussion above, while not technically an RfC, would constitute as one, then I would have no opposition to removing this RfC. I was just soliciting outside opinions through the RfC network. Angryapathy (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The original thread on this topic is sufficient for the object of an RfC. I don't see any need to start a new thread on the same topic. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was widely advertised for comment. Just because it didn't have an rfctag doesn't mean it wasn't an RfC. Having another one at this point just seems like asking the same question over and over to try to get a different answer. I support her having her own article if one can be constructed that is an actual biography without overlapping completely with the trial article, but I accept that there wasn't consensus for that at this time. I think agr's comment below is a good one, things may change here in the next couple months, and it might be better to hold off on any more RfCs. Gigs (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I think an RfC may be premature for two reasons. 1. The main issue raised is BLP1E. As I pointed out above, BLP1E only applies to people who maintain a low public profile. Ms. Anthony is due to be released Sunday and we'll likely know soon what her intentions are in this area. Press reports say she will be tempted by several attractive offers to tell her story. If it is confirmed that she is taking a high profile road, that changes the BLP1E analysis. We can wait a couple of weeks for the situation to be come clear. 2. The event article Death of Caylee Anthony, from which the proposed article is to be split off, is the subject of an extensive discussion at the BLP Noticeboard, Wikipedia:BLPN#Casey_Anthony_trial. Editors there have expressed concerns that much of it is a collection of gossip published in the press regardless of relevance to its subject or encyclopedic worth. Until the parent article is cleaned up, we should not be creating another BLP problem. Per BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."--agr

Even if, as the press would like, she sells a story that is still a part of the one event - I fail to see why people are pushing against guidelines/policy to create an article about such a person - unless something major changes you have got no chance at all, suggest stop wasting time thinking about it. - Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not against policy for all the reasons that have already been explained. I wish editors would actually read what WP:BLP says rather than inventing their own rules that have no basis in policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to assume everyone participating in this discussion has read WP:BLP. There's no reason to assume otherwise. There's also no reason we have to rush to create this article. Let some time pass, and we can revisit it, later. Perhaps, when more time has been allowed for reliable sources to develop and Casey Anthony has further removed from the event, maybe it will be easier to determine her notability.  Chickenmonkey  21:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What "rush"? Waiting 3 years is hardly rushing into things. We have editors who are ready and willing to work on it, and it's supported by WP:BLP. There's no reason not to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AQuest, she's a not guilty of the main charges one event rap sheet, shes not a notable person, she has been involved in a notable event only. BLP imo objects strongly against your desired addition. I don't see any reason in policy/guidelines or value that could be added for our readers to create a BLP about this person - Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

What does guilt/innocence have to do with notability? Rules are being made up that simply do not exist. Here's what WP:Notability actually says: In order for a topic to be notable, there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• Has there been significant coverage? Yes.
• Are they reliable sources? Yes.
• Are they independent of the subject? Yes.

So what's the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AQFK - I'm curious to know what you think makes Casey Anthony notable enough - besides her involvement with this case - that would warrant an article dedicated to her, and that would exempt her situation from WP:BLP1E? Shirtwaist ☎ 04:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

She's not excempt from WP:BLP1E. The problem is that some editors seem to be under the mistaken impression that BLP1E says we should never have an article abour person known for 1 event. But BLP1E says no such thing. In fact, BLP1E says that if the event is significant and person's role in the event is well-documented, we can have an article about the person. BLP1E specifically cites John Hinckley, Jr. as someone who is known for only 1 event. As a result, we have lots of articles about people known for only one event because their role was significant and it recieved significant coverage by reliables sources per BLP1E: Monica Lewinsky, Susan Smith, Richard Jewell, Jessica Lynch, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside WP:OTHERSTUFF, the examples you cite are instructive. Lewinsky played a major role in the impeachment of a U.S. President, and hence is more comparable to Hinkley in significance. Jewell died in 2007, so he is no longer covered under BLP (BLP standards have tightened since his article was created, and arguably he did not keep a low profile, suing several media outlets). For both Smith and Lynch there is only one article, not one for the event and one for the person, and both articles primarily deal with the event. --agr (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

An impeachment that failed (no conviction) and many considered purely political. Sorry, didn't realize Jewell had died. I struck through that item. Per Smith and Lynch, are you saying that we should just have one article on Casey Anthony? I'd be willing to go along with that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The political component to Clinton's impeachment makes it more significant, not less. It was a major event in US history, arguably setting a tone in American politics that persists to today's debt crisis. Wikipedia's preference is one article for a story like Anthony's, preferably centered on the event. (If the person goes on to do other things that are notable, that may change.) The Lynch article is a good example of why an event article is preferred. We should not be accumulating details of her personal life, such as having a baby with her boyfriend, his name, the name of her daughter, her Caesarian section. A person who isn't seeking the limelight like Lynch is entitled to some privacy. Just because such tidbits are published in the news does not mean they should be recorded in an encyclopedia. Again, I suggest waiting until it's clear what Anthony intends to do regarding her public profile. --agr (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec)AGR makes a couple of good points: the significance of the event is a major factor in determining whether separate articles are appropriate, and "less significant" events (like this one) warrant merging of person and event. The Casey Anthony case is roughly analogous to the Lizzie Borden case in that they were both involved in a sensational murder case and trial and were acquitted, but still held in contempt by public opinion. Borden has an article about her which includes the event and its related circumstances - investigation, trial, etc. I don't see why we couldn't do the same here, but this would require a shift of focus away from "Cayley's death" to "Casey Anthony" by renaming it, while incorporating the existing material currently in "Death of Cayley Anthony" to fit into a "Casey Anthony" article. In any event, Casey and the event do not deserve separate articles. The death of Cayley Anthony, though tragic and upsetting, is just not that "significant" IMO. What it comes down to, really, is what people feel should be the focus of the article - Cayley or Casey. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we rename the Death of Caylee Anthony to Casey Anthony article and focus on the event? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be putting too much emphasis on Casey - someone who is presumably not guilty, and not notable except in relation to the case? Lizzie Borden only became notable over the passage of time. Only time will tell if Casey turns out to be as notorious. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I believe if Anthony had been convicted, an article with her name would be much more acceptable than under these circumstances. Shirtwaist ☎ 22:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Shirtwaist. For a biography specifically about her (meaning not just her trial), it would be WP:UNDUE to have it mostly about the trial and aftermath of the trial. I'm really not seeing how having the word "article" in the title changes that or why we should have that word in the title. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• - WP:RAPSHEET - WP:BLP1E - ... the idea that there could or should be a life story BLP under the name of this person is unbelievable, I am amazed you as a quite experienced editor are pushing for its creation..Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge - You're right. Casey Anthony has been in the news for three years, and she hasn't been notable for those three years. What has changed, now? Nothing. It's possible that it was an oversight that this article hasn't been created in three years, but that simply isn't the case. WP:Notability also says, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Currently, reliable sources only cover Casey Anthony in the context of a single event. It's an event which has been in the news for three years, but it's still a single event. WP:BLP1E does offer the caveat that a separate article may be appropriate, but it isn't inherently so. There simply is no need for a BLP on Casey Anthony, at this time. Yes, she played a substantial role in a significant event, but that doesn't automatically warrant an article. Simply because editors are willing to create this article doesn't mean that they should be allowed to. There's no need for it. If, after some time has passed, it's accurate that she has remained notable for some reason outside of the single event, then we can revisit creating this article. Notability does not go away. Newsworthiness does. If she's notable now, she'll be notable once some time has passed from this event. If, however, she remains a low-profile individual, it will be even clearer that we should not have a BLP on her.  Chickenmonkey  23:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of craziness... AQFK is exactly correct here. You guys are being obstinate, for reasons that I can only guess at (and none of them are good). Wrong on policy, wrong on position, the only leg to stand on is that some admin has decided to salt the redirect (against policy, by the way) (well, the protection was due to edit warring, but... someone should say something about that. While edit warring shoudl of course be avoided, our normal consensus model ought not be short circuited by administrators either), and the opposition has been too polite to really do anything about it to date.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As persuasive as your "I'm right, and you're wrong" argument is, I have to disagree with it. However, I've made my opinion known--an opinion I do not believe is "wrong on policy" and which does not carry an ulterior motive. I assume everyone here is merely attempting to edit Wikipedia to the best of their ability. To that end, I'm tired of trying to be rational, here, so I'll trust that other editors will be able to handle this. Have a nice day.  Chickenmonkey  04:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well said Chickenmonkey - Seconded. Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, since my perception is very similar... in reverse.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a sad discussion to see; accusations of bad faith over a desire to hold BLP1E to account are always painful :( I want to expand on my fairly strong oppose with the following:

We always and without fail prefer to protect the privacy of living individuals - even hugely notable ones (which is why we tend to avoid writing about their families etc.). BLP1E is meant to protect private individuals who are involved in a notable event from having their unrelated private life detailed and documented on Wikipedia - because it has little historical interest and is unfair to them as an individual (if you were, for example, were hurt in a notable incident tomorrow would you like Wikipedia detailing your personal life?).

BLP1E is often misunderstood as saying "if this person features in lots of newspapers then BLP1E is passed". What it really is intended to say is "if this person is covered significantly in the context of more than one notable event then BLP1E is passed". This is made clear in the text of the policy.

On the other hand it does make exemption for particularly notable people, who only feature in one event, but who have become assiduously notable to history. This is a policy to apply carefully, and after some significant time is passed.

It is not for us to decide if Anthony will be remembered in years to come, and the subject of significant interest after this event has passed from the public conciousness. If in ten years we have a few books about her then, yes, we clearly have to write direclty about her. Until then we strongly favour her privacy by dealing with the notable aspect of her life only. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose article creation, for now - Contrary to what one editor said above, WP:BLP1E does _not_ say that a separate article is "generally" appropriate. It says that it "may" be appropriate. I would say a big NO right now to a separate article, and wait until _after_ she becomes a porn star, reality tv-star, or whatever such that she clear merits a separate bio page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - John Hinkley Junior and David Berkowitz are also arguably "one event notable". If you really think about it. They still have stand-alone articles about them. And please spare me the "otherstuff" argument. As the point is logical CONSISTENCY in arguments. You can't say that because a person is only "one event notable" (which is actually debatable in this case, so really not so "clear", as she will have book deals and there are many other aspects now, after all of this, about her life that go a bit beyond this one event) that therefore that person doesn't deserve a stand-alone article, regarding the person. Remember the point of WP:IGNORE ALL RULES... "WikiLawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; nor moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao." Things need to be taken on a case by case basis, as not everything is black and white, as some people love to make out on here. Of course at this point, Casey Anthony should have her own article. She's notable beyond this event. In a sense. And even if she was only known for this, so what? Explain how Hinkley was so notable beyond the attempted assassination of Reagan? Just cuz he had a fixation on Foster? Fail... That fixation was simply PART of the problem with his psychosis against Reagan. But the point is Hinkley has a separate article about him. Also, it doesn't matter that Casey was acquitted of the major charges. This whole thing has had INTERNATIONAL attention for months and years now. Again "WP:IGNORERULES" is for a reason. Not that it's definitely a violation in the first place. An argument can be made that Casey is notable (now, not in 2008, but now) beyond this. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify - Berkowitz's article includes every aspect the "Son Of Sam" case so there is no "Son Of Sam" article, and the text concerning Berkowitz's personal life is only 5% of the article, and he was convicted of the crimes, and there were multiple victims so naming the article after the victims instead of him would be inappropriate. And as has been pointed out before, trying to assassinate a president is somewhat more significant an event than the death of a child, which is the point being made by WP:BLP1E. Finally, you might rethink your stance on the use of WP:OTHERSTUFF, as you seem to be using it to make your point about Hinckley and Berkowitz. Shirtwaist ☎ 11:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You might add that Berkowitz is known for more than one event: eight separate shooting incidents over a bit more than a year plus letters to the press, so BLP1E does not apply. I am curious what proponents of a separate article about Casey Anthony would include that would not be appropriate in the existing Death of... article?--agr (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point about no BLP1E for Berkowitz. As for Casey, there is nothing notable about her that I can see, unless she starts looking for "the real killer(s)", or maybe starts up a romance with Jeff MacDonald. ;-} Shirtwaist ☎ 12:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm referring more to an article that at least has Casey Anthony's NAME in it. Like it used to have. It's not that big a deal to me one way or the other. But it seems a bit stupid that the main article is called "Death of Caylee Anthony". Instead of "Casey Anthony case". Like it used to be called. As far as Berkowits (sighs) it does not matter that they were 8 killings or 4 or 2 or whatever. IT WAS ONE BASIC SITUATION...is the point. And as for Hinkley, oh I see. The life of Reagan is way more important than any 2 1/2 year old girl. Reagan the Iran-Contra star-gazing corrupt politician and wacko. Casey's life is not as important. Gotcha... Uhh...fail. (And by the way, Reagan survived...Casey didn't.) It doesn't matter anyway. Because that dodges the point that HINKLEY WAS KNOWN FOR ONE EVENT...yet has an article named after him. No matter how supposedly "big" that event was. This event with Casey has become "big" with news coverage all over the universe, regarding it. And all the craziness and soap-opera dramas surrounding it. Now the bounty hunter who once supported Casey is trying to sue Casey, and someone is trying to sue the bounty hunter. Anyway, again, the point is that the main article should at least have CASEY ANTHONY'S NAME IN IT. Period. peace out. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Both those two examples have at least one (and on cursory examination, a number) of books written about them (or covering them in some detail) published a fairly length time after the events. So, to my mind, this confers them some level of notability - is Anthony has the same treatment in 5 or 10 years then I would probably consider supporting an article. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"We always and without fail prefer to protect the privacy of living individuals. This was already debunked a couple week's ago.[7] 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree; and detail related to the trial is fair game. However, we do respect the privacy of her life unrelated to the trial. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - There is so much information on Casey Anthony outside of the trial, I am surprised there is even a question about this. BLP1E clearly doesn't apply here as the person is not a "low profile individual" and she surely isn't likely to become one. General notability guidelines are clearly met, so this article is a no-brainer. The fact that so many other articles on less notable people accused of murder exist informs this analysis of the policy, despite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.LedRush (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I'm a little uncomfortable about the BLP implications of having an innocent person's name redirect to a "death of" article in which that person is accused of murdering the person. Yes, it's explained in the article, but the implications certainly aren't great.LedRush (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. More and more relevant as prosecutorial misconduct starts to come out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not Guilty" is not the same as "Innocent." Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Innocent is not a legal term in any way and is an opinionated perspective. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Books have been being written about Casey Anthony. I thought that everyone here should know that she is now in quite a few books written about her. Now the books have been written during the trial I believe, so I'm pretty sure that there will be even more written, some of the ones listed here of course will be updated versions. Does this change things? Yes, I think it does. With these books and the ones to come will be movies and so on. I don't understand why this is such a big deal. She was found not guilty but please, remember what the jurors said that did speak out. They said that the prosecution did prove their case beyond a resonable doubt. They also said they didn't think she was innocent just that there was reasonable doubt. Please whoever salted to prevent the article from being, would you please reverse yourself? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's editable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The redirects no longer protected since three weeks ago. I am not seeing any consensus to create such an article , in fact currently I think there are a lot of objections. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I just learned that it's not salted anymore, my error. I know there are a lot of objections, I don't know why because no one knows what would be in such an article. But ok, editors object, fine, but that doesn't mean that those of us who feel an article should or could be done can't make one in our own space. I am thinking of doing it in my sandbox and will announce it if I do. If someone else decides to start this article in their space I would love to be told about it. I've never written an article before so this would be new to me and of course I would welcome all the help I could get if I decide to do this, which I haven't yet. If you are interested in an article called Casey Anthony would you please let me know on my talk page? I'd like to see how many are actually interested in making this article plus if you are interested, please let me know at that time if you are willing to help me with it. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Running list of info to add to future article

Since there obviously will be info that is not deemed appropriate to the Death of Caylee Anthony article that eventually will be suitable here, let's just make a running list of what might be appropriate with refs if not wellknown, as placeholder, etc. [Added later: See Timeline of Casey Anthony case for ongoing updates; some are at Death of Caylee Anthony.] CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Running List
(Don't delete disputed items, but discuss below and merely strike if there is a strong current consensus against them, so they don't get re-added as new items.)

• Short early bio
• Short summary of investigation, trial, acquittal, appeals, etc.
• Threats against her (and threats and attacks on individuals thought to be her)
• Search for Casey after leaves jail (absurd by definitely notable)
• Probation on check fraud and news on that as progresses
• Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#DCF_Report
• Various discussions of her getting therapy and for what; and any news on that as progresses
• Tv and film deals per this talk page discussion
• Civil suits as continue to unfold
• Money court orders her to pay for search (updated).
• Other legal action she may take (perhaps civil rights violations in withholding of exculpatory evidence, etc.)
• Higher quality WP:RS Pundits comments on various aspects of her personality and applicability to Death of Caylee Anthony
• Parents comments on Dr. Phil
• Effort by another party to trademark her name (denied) (reported at Business Week)

Draft Categories: 1986 births | People from Warren, Ohio| People acquitted of murder

• Comparisons with Conrad Murray and Amanda Knox - neither of whom have own article, but articles about deaths they are accused of being involved in.

Discussion

Well... I am going to be very hard on this list :) so apologies in advance.

• Short early bio
  • This has little relevance in establishing her as notable outside the one event - and not recording this information is one of the core reasons we have the BLP1E police (privacy of non-public individuals). Indeed; if any bio was written we would only reflect details of relevant to her subsequent notability.
• Short summary of investigation, trial, acquittal, appeals, etc.
  • The "one event"
• Threats against her (and threats and attacks on individuals thought to be her)
  • Related directly to the one event, can be adequately summarised in the main article - and I see no reason to go into any level of detail over the threats (unless there are one or two that sources have pulled out as significant)
• Search for Casey after leaves jail (absurd by definitely notable)
  • Can you clarify what this relates to? I don't understand?
• Tv and film deals per this talk page discussion
  • Related directly to the "one event" and can be dealt with more appropriately in the main article
• Civil suits as continue to unfold
  • Directly related to the "one event"
• Other legal action she may take (perhaps civil rights violations in withholding of exculpatory evidence, etc.)
  • Speculative... still related to the "one event"
• Higher quality WP:RS Pundits comments on various aspects of her personality and applicability to Death of Casey Anthony
  • Uh, no. WP:BLP. Perhaps in specific relation to the Caylee Anthony event, if done carefully.

My point being; nothing there relates to an independently notable event :) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say the same types of things that ErrantX does. This looks more like what you were saying you wanted to do with the other article, a reorganization/rewrite, which the editors there were adamately against. If you are going to collect things down here to show a reason for there to be an article about her than reliable sources with notations of why they would be important to this article should be done. Errant the search for Casey after her release is because the media started following her immediately after she left jail and got on a plane, and then on another and so on. The media is trying to keep track of her and where she is. I don't think this section is useful to the makings of an article on Casey Anthony. What we need to show is good sources showing that there is new litigations on the way, some of this is mentioned in the other article but I think it will expand in a way as to not 'fit' in that article anymore and other items that are happening. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The media is trying to keep track of her and where she is.; ah cool, thanks. So that is a paragraph of content at best (probably only a couple of sentences). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Errant's responses seem pretty out there to me. Many of the items in this proposed biography fall outside of what one event means (film/books deals, search for Caylee, unrelated litigation, the media frenzy following Casey). And beyond that, these items don't belong in a "Death of" article because they don't have anything to do with the actual death. This reading of BLP1E would basically remove anyone who has become famous for one successful/notable event (one-hit wonders, athletes, reality TV personalities) but who remains in the spotlight and does other things that are reported mainly because of that earlier event. Additionally, it would treat Anthony differently than most other people accused of murder in high profile cases (who either have their own articles or who have huge amounts of biographical info in the crime article, which is not available in this situation because this is a "Murder of" article.

Of course, not only is Anthony excluded from the BLP1E argument because her notability comes from more than one event and the current article is inadequate to house her other biographical information, but she is not a "low profile" individual and she is looking to remain "non low-profile". She is looking into media deals (books/movies) and into using the media to her own gains. These are not the activities of a low profile individual. The case is over and she's looking to remain high profile while still being reported widely in RSs. Not only is the second prong of BLP1E shattered, but no part of BLP1E applies to her. This is a complete no brainer on policy. And even if it weren't, the BLP1E is a guideline. The fact that so much notable and relevant info on her exists which cannot be put into the "Death of" article should be more than enough to outweigh concerns on the BLP1E side.LedRush (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LedRush for excellent analysis. I'm personally not in a big hurry to do the article, but since others keep saying discuss these other issues here and not in Death of Caylee article, I'm just a doing it. Hopefully, at first appropriate moment someone else will write it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the running list above is not a good running list for an article on Casey Anthony. I do agree with you though that what you list are reasons why there needs to be another article in her name. She is going to expand her notabilty esp. with her appeals, civil cases (at least two of them have been filed now), and then the movies, books etc. There is going to be plenty to put into this article and I believe this. I think one can be started now which should be careful to put up front that she was found 'not guilty' of any of the felony charges. Then it should go on to show what happens in the aftermath of the litigation. Is the prosecutor going to have to answer for things? We don't know yet. The civil suits start in a few months I believe. If memory serves me the nanny one is set for sometime in September. I don't remember off the top of my head what the civil suit for the group that spent so much money looking for a little girl that was known to be dead is set for. They want their money back since Casey admitted she knew that the baby was already gone which was the drowning in the pool accident used in her case. Is someone going to take the case to civil court? I haven't seen anything but that's what happened to OJ. There are just a lot of unknown things going on but there is also a lot of known things going on that to me warrent the making of this article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(film/books deals, search for Caylee, unrelated litigation, the media frenzy following Casey). And beyond that, these items don't belong in a "Death of" article because they don't have anything to do with the actual death.; by that (interesting) logic, the trial of Casey is unrelated to the actual death as well... Don't confuse the title of the article with the scope. More replies coming... --Errant ^(chat!) 14:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This reading of BLP1E would basically remove anyone who has become famous for one successful/notable event (one-hit wonders, athletes, reality TV personalities) but who remains in the spotlight and does other things that are reported mainly because of that earlier event.; I don't see much similarity there... she has barely gotten out of jail, what on earth could she have done that the media would report on? In the next few weeks I am sure her motions will be tracked; nothing at all new there. If they are still doing it in a year then perhaps this argument has merit. Otherwise, irrelevant. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

She is looking into media deals (books/movies) and into using the media to her own gains. These are not the activities of a low profile individual. The case is over and she's looking to remain high profile while still being reported widely in RSs.; yep, and this might change things if her media career goes beyond relevance to the event/trial (which it may do, it wouldn't be the first time). Till it does, though, this argument has no relevance.

The fact that so much notable and relevant info on her exists which cannot be put into the "Death of" article should be more than enough to outweigh concerns on the BLP1E side.; at this point she is a non-public individual and her life not directly related to this event is utterly irrelevant and should not be written about.

And my final plea; please step back from the situation and consider the tenets and values of Wikipedia and the intent of the BLP policy; reporting trivial biographical details about non-public individuals because they were the centre of a highly public media/legal event is way out of line with those ideals and an extremely uncomfortable approach to writing historically relevant content. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore most of your arguments as I believe I've already addressed them, but I do want to contest your position of her being a non-public individuals. Non-public individuals don't negotiate with producers/agents for interviews, book deals and other publicity infused events. Once thrust into the public spotlight like this, it's arguable whether or not you're still a non-public individual. Once you actively use the media for your own benefit and publicize yourself (or announce plans to), there is no way in the world you're a non-public individual.LedRush (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If/when those things occur then we can re-assess. Simply being in discussions with those people certainly does not make one a public individual. If she gets a book/film deal in relation to the trial/death then I think that still doesn't really qualify (because it is still that one event and our core policies on this are explicit in requiring coverage to be related to more than one event). If she ends up with media career/appearances off the back of the trial... then sure that is another matter. When it happens :) (Ignoring my arguments doesn't seem a good idea :S unfortunately, nothing you have written identifies her as featuring in more than one event - so even with BLP sensitivity aside, policy hits hard on this one) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not ignoring your arguments altogether, I'm merely ignoring the ones that have already been refuted. The fact that Anthony is being covered by RSs for doing these other public things certainly makes her a non-public individual. There is simply no policy which would prevent an Anthony article, and policy (and its past use) argues strongly for one.LedRush (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(Argument moved from above as discussion is supposed to happen here - The first comment is a repeat of my vote and arguement in support of an Anthony artucle) -BLP1E is not an issue because (1) she is notable for more than one event, as made clear by the outline below and the number of RSs which cover her unrelated to this murder trial; (2) because she is not a "low profile individual" and therefore fails the second prong of the BLP1E guideline; (3) BLP1E is just a guideline, and we have so much notable info on Casey Anthony for a good article that shouldn't be included in this type of "Death of" article; and (4) the existence of so many other articles on individuals equally or less notable than Anthony in similar circumstances (either found guilty, assumed guilty, or found innocent of high profile murders) either have their own articles or have articles with much biographical content in it which cannot be placed here; why would Anthony be treated so differently than other subjects of WP articles?LedRush (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Please provide sources unrelated to this event that establish her as a high profile individual. You appear to be claiming these exist and it would allow me to re-assess the situation. Note that BLP1E does not have "two prongs", it is very clearly and specifically written to indicate that the individual must be high profile outside of the one event. If the wording is confusing you I am considering proposing a slight tweak to the wording to make it clearer :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording of the policy is clear, as is its execution. Your reading simply doesn't make sense and is not the reading used. If you'd like to change the guideline, by all means, make the suggestion. But while you do so, please try not to be so condescending.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

LedRush the policy is explicit; there may be some confusion here because BLP1E is just an extra note to be more reserved in relation to living people - the actual policy is at WP:ONEEVENT and is extremely clear that coverage must exist unrelated to this event. As the event is not of major international (possibly even national) significance (i.e. it is unlikely to be the subject of ongoing coverage for the next few years) and we currently have nothing beyond media sources then I do not think we can class this event on the level of, say, a presidential assassination or serial killer. Do you have the sources you mentioned? I am sorry to have sounded condescending; however you are getting it 100% wrong :) and I can think of no other way to put it to you that will make you understand the wording! --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is where your interpretation of policy is different. Sorry to have to have bolded that word, but when you tell someone that they are wrong, I believe it is necessary to point out that you did not create the policy, nor are you the voice of consensus, nor are you the final word regarding interpretation of policy. The guidelines and policies are not finite rules, and are interpreted as time goes on. See, when reading WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." There are multiple independant sources discussing the subject, Casey Anthony. Common sense dictates, since we have hundreds if not thousands of stub articles on athletes for playing professional sports and nothing else, and we have volumes more information on this subject, that this subject should have an article. Also, please remember that this is a discussion, and telling someone they are wrong (but hey, you put a smiley after it!) is offensive. You think they are wrong. Please remember to note that difference in future discussions. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Casey Anthony is a person from Florida that was found guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. she served three years in prison on remand and was released early for good behavior....not really a good start for a wikipedia biography is it. This woman is everything that policy asserts should not have a wikipedia article at all... and will not have one either unless something changes in regard to her notability. A book deal or a movie won't change anything - write an article about the book or write one about the movie - if there is one written/filmed Off2riorob (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What I have detailed on the page is our correct consensus/policy. Indeed; policy specifically notes that your argument is not consistent with our approach. If being told you are wrong offends you, well, I am sorry but get a thicker skin! In this case; you are wrong. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What you have detailed is most certainly not the policy, and normal English reading and the implementation of the policy bears this out. I was not offended by you calling me wrong, I was offended by the manner of you doing it. Stepping it up and being even ruder does make the first instance any more palatable.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And your statement that there aren't too prongs to the calculus of this seem strange as the guideline states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". If we don't follow regular interpretations and ignore how Wikipedia has dealt with this in the past, at the very least in order for the guideline to be applicable we need (1) RSs to cover the person only in the context of a single event; and (2) the person to otherwise (outside of the initial event) remain a low-profile individual. Of course, even if both prongs are met, the guideline merely states that we should generally avoid having an article on the person. The examples in the policy you linked to seem to indicate that this may be an exception because of the incredible media attention focused on this case and Anthony's central role in it.LedRush (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So it comes down to what is "one event", and whether she's likely to remain low profile. The "one event" thing is purely opinion, as are most wiki decisions, but I'd say the current media manhunt for her[8] is another event. Probably more than the second, but it at least goes beyond the death. As far as low profile, I think the media has decided to make her one of the highest profile women in America. We should start her article, in my opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You make a case for an article entitled - Media manhunt of Casey Anthony - Nothing you suggest asserts a notable life story under the tile Casey Anthony (biography) - Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony is a notable ... what? - Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Casey Anthony is a person from Florida that was found guilty of four misdemeanor counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. she served three years in prison on remand and was released early for good behavior. ... - all the rest under a biography title is imo a violation of Wikipedia BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also my position that extended discussion in an attempt to create such a BLP when policy has been pointed out is an attack against that living person and in itself a violation of Wikipedia BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(redent) Casey Anthony is the logical title for the proposed article. It's where readers would expect to find the information. You're right that the media manhunt probably has enough coverage for an article of it's own, though. We could probably write 5 articles about her, with all the coverage she's gotten over the years. Finally, I disagree with your final position. It's just how we make decisions on wiki. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats right, such shit is the way of the wiki - but policy is king in the end and in regard to living people, BLP is the king of them all - unless something dramatically changes there will never be a biography under the title of Casey Anthony - imo users that have had policy pointed out to them and continue to attempt to create one are themselves in violation of primary core wikipedia policy - WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I just added Category:People acquitted of murder to show there are 115 others who have their own articles, most not as famous as Casey. Also, a future article won't necessarily be an attack, especially if she tells her story and it is seen much more sympathetically than so far. (Which I have a feeling will be the case.) That's why I say it's not quite time to do it, but let's see what further developments are. (She might win America's heart and start some big foundation for abused girls; I like to think positive.) I just wanted to get an outline of appropriate material going for future reference. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I feel its unworthy of detailed investigation but I clicked on three random internals from the Cat:People acquitted of murder and they were all dead. Until its not a BLP violation you should keep it on your own computer and cease to encourage extended discussion in regard to the creation of such a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as there's no BLP violation at all even posited here, is the time now? People are discussing whether the BLP guideline regarding BLP articles favors or doesn't favor an article.LedRush (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This extended attempt to create a article against BLP policy is the violation in itself. Let me repeat - this person is a one event, not guilty of major charges subject that the creation of a biography under her name would be a clear violation or wikipedia BLP policy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think I'm violating policy, bring it to the appropriate forum. Otherwise, stop with the hyperbolic rhetoric accusing me of violating policy for discussing my interpretation of policy which differs than yours. On a related note, BLP1E has been at the very least been disputed (and I believe refuted) above and I'm not sure what you mean by her being innocent. Can WP only have articles on criminals?LedRush (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Due to the fact that she was found not guilty, Wikipedia considers her a victim. In the treatment of victims, we must be careful not to aid in the continuation of the victimization.  Chickenmonkey  20:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - thank you Chickenmonkey. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If I state exactly what happened, AKA she was accused of murdering her child and acquitted of all charges, and base all the information on reliable sources, how is that a violation of BLP? Angryapathy (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Chicken- Can you show me where it says that people who are accused of a crime but exonerated should be treated as victims? It could be so, but it's not in the link.

Assuming you're right, she was still found guilty of several crimes, so she would be both perpetrator and victim. Also, the policy to which you linked seems pretty clear that when the original article is not suitable for the encyclopedic content being discussed, a separate article could be merited. It goes on to talk about situations just like this one.

Finally, why would an article continue victimization? She was acquitted of the major charges and the article would say that. Most of the information would be about non-trial stuff, as indicated in the outline above, so that can't hurt. I simply don't understand this argument.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not an argument - its an experienced, neutral interpretation of core wikipedia policy. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So again, stating the facts- she was accused and acquitted of murdering her child- and back all info up with reliable sources, violates BLP? Angryapathy (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You should go and read and accept guidelines yourself - she is a one event, not guilty person, the type of which has no chance or requirement of a biographical article under her name in respect to BLP policy. I tire of repeating myself and I refuse to continue to be part of the ongoing opinionated refusal to listen to policy and as such the continued violation of policy by refusing to accept policy. I would delete this talk page as a BLP violation and salt it to stop it being recreated.Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in BLP that says we can never write an article a person known for one event. In reality, BLP says something quite different no matter how many times you claim it doesn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The BLP1E argument has been handily refuted above (IMHO) and is, at best, highly disputed. I don't know why you think articles on WP are only written about convicted criminals (which, btw, Anthony is, just not of the big charges). And please stop accusing my discussing topics in good faith as being a violation of policy. Take me to AN/I or somewhere else or please stop making the accusation.LedRush (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP clearly asserts weight to WP:one event and requires us to err on the side of caution on respect to living people - this is a person not guilty of serious charges against her - the idea that you, User:A Quest For Knowledge, want to write a biography of her, under her name, when the detail is already easily covered under the death of the child article or the book about it or the movie about it, makes me want to request you are banned from editing BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@LedRush - The death of her child makes her a victim. The event article Death of Caylee Anthony is suitable for all information we should document on Casey Anthony (even though I still contend that article should be renamed "Casey Anthony trial"). Creating an article detailing the life of a victim continues victimization by focusing undue attention on the victim.

@Angryapathy - See my reply to LedRush.

Earlier, someone stated that we should create this article because this is where readers expect to find the information. We do create articles simply because it may be expected. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or newspaper; in that capacity, Wikipedia does not document any and everything a reader may expect to find simply because it's in the news. Verifiability does not equal notability.  Chickenmonkey  20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." That is notability, and Casey Anthony has it. Angryapathy (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." -- WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."  Chickenmonkey  21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob: I suggest you accept BLP policy the way it is or seek concensus to have it changed. Threatening to ban editors who disagree with you is not the way to win content disputes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I need no policy change. I am not threatening to ban you from BLP articles, I said in relation to your failing to accept or understand BLP policy that I would ban you from editing BLP articles. This is also not a content dispute - policy clearly supports my position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Quest- that is very uncivil, Off2riorob. Thank goodness you are not an admin. But back to the subject at hand: creating an article on Casey Anthony is a violation of BLP. But having all the information about her placed in the Death of Caylee Anthony is totally kosher. If that same info is in a seperate article, how does that content now somehow violate BLP? Angryapathy (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a BLP - Death of Caylee Anthony , about the death of Caylee - ... BLP Casey Anthony (BLP) about the life story of a person that is only notable in regard to the first article. I would block and ban users that violate or fail to respect or understand WP:BLP policy - there is nothing uncivil about that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This is getting silly. One Event (the notability policy, not the BLP one) is very clear in strongly discouraging articles about people relating to one event. If you are writing an article and, as in this case, 90% of the detail relates to one event you are committing a BLP violation. None of the information presented above cannot be adequately covered in either the event article or in a subsequent article about a specific portion (i.e. a movie etc.). There is no need to spin off a big chunk of the trial content, append on some of the post-trial media coverage and pre-pend some irrelevant guff about her childhood.

This is our consistent policy, applied to hundreds of articles. It was asserted above that this trial is of a distinctly high profile enough to warrant a One Event exception - I suggest you go off and do something else for a few years and then come back as see. The exceptions noted on that page are extremely well known, even to this day, and the subject of in-depth analysis in multiple books. There are many media/legal frenzies such as this each year, and none are ground shatteringly significant on a historical scale.

If Casey Anthony does end up having a media career unrelated to this event. If the media are still hounding her in a year (hint; they'll have forgotten about her in 2 months..). If there are non-media sources covering the event in detail in the future. Then perhaps there is a case for identifying her as independently notable.

@Carol; thanks for that list, I'll try to go through and fix some of those over this week (as per my usual approach; if you give me a list of current problems to try and support an incorrect interpretation of policy it usually gets fixed :) so that is only a good thing. Classic example is WP:BLPCAT problems - indeed, it is almost worth having these disputes to bring up problems to fix!) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

+ This is indeed silly. No one is suggesting writing an article with 90% of the detail relating to one event and very little of the information presented above can be adequately covered in either the event article. No one (no one I know of) is suggesting to spin off a big chunk of the trial content, append on some of the post-trial media coverage and pre-pend some irrelevant guff about her childhood.

 +  
 + This is definitely not our consistent policy as it is not applied to hundreds of other articles.LedRush (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant's rebuttals to Carol's suggested contents of a "standalone" C.A. article make a lot of sense, and I agree with all of them completely. Nobody so far has come up with one single thing other than the "Death of Cayley" story that Casey is notable for, "notable" in a manner consistent with existing WP policies and guidelines, that is. And being chased by Nancy Grace et al is a piss-poor excuse for "notability" in my book. As the coverage of post-trial free-range Casey inevitably recedes into the tabloids, and most likely from there to oblivion where it belongs(imo), what I think would be a suitable handling of this whole benighted mishigoss - suitable to WP standards, that is - is to do what has been suggested and change the title to "Casey Anthony trial", as that seems to be the overriding focus of interest in reading this talk page and the article as it now stands...not the little girl's death. Of the 8,200 words in the article, 275 are about the "disappearance" of Cayley, the rest are concerned only with the trial, everything related to it that occurred before, during, and after the trial...and nothing but the trial(so help me God!). This tells me that the trial is the important and notable event that a GA, and presumably an FA article should pertain to, with the importance of Casey Anthony joining that of all the others connected to the case in the "also related to the case" category. Like Errant and others have said - until and unless Casey Anthony does something worth noting in WP in the next 5-10 years besides the very-un-notable "getting busted for lying to cops", the trial and its related topics should be the only standalone article in which Casey Anthony's name appears. Shirtwaist ☎ 04:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to get that title changed, and used the statistics to back it up. Check out the RfC at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony. We don't need this discussion is two different places. Angryapathy (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

New section for ease of editing

Keep on discussing. Just adding a section header. Plus, how many years can one event go on? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

TMZ which is fairly reliable says Casey is going to be getting professional help for all the associated mental problems she's had from all this and won't be speaking out for a few months. Didn't check other sources, but it makes sense. Why not wait til then and revisit the idea of an article?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Scott Peterson has a Wikipedia article. This should be an easy example to compare with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

Scott Peterson has a Wikipedia article. So...

Since this ridiculous argument is based upon that WP edit rule (according to the talk articles here), what is the difference? What changed? 69.140.2.44 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)