Talk:Reeva Steenkamp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Premature move by S-d n r

Even in light of the above ongoing discussion, and much as though I personally doubt notability, S-d n r moved the article without adding to the discussion to Death of Reeva Steenkamp. Racklever then reverted this. Until we reach agreement, please can other Users not make the same (at present) premature choice. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i cannot believe an admistrator has not already made this article deletion - as a life she was irrelevant to wiki notability - in death she is notable--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Trident is right until a consensus has been reached no move of the article name should be done. And still in my opinion had this article been made two days ago and built on her modeling career then no one would question her notability. Lets not in fact make this into a discussion on her death/murder but also about her career which will probably become even more clear over the next few days. For me being on the cover of FHM indicates that she was a model of high reputation within the modeling world and not just your everyday wannabe model.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because of what happened to her on Valentines Day 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.10.99 (talk • contribs) 11:28, February 14, 2013

I have removed the deletion notice as she was famous as a model in South Africa. Racklever (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source that supports what you said above? --hydrox (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already added a source to the article: Reeva Steenkamp: FHM model, law graduate and girlfriend of Oscar Pistorius Racklever (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That only says she was law graduate and a model, that worked for a modelling agency and who was a girlfriend of a notable individual. None of those make her necessarily notable, let alone support your previous assertment that she was "famous as a model in South Africa".

She is in the headlines for her death. However, articles should not generally be created for people who are notable only for one event. --hydrox (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

People who are notable only for one event says "if a individual's role within it (the event) is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Racklever (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Refs from before she was shot should be added to the article to establish some notability from her career. Jim Michael (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and the quoted sentence starts with "If the event is highly significant". I don't think this event is highly significant. --hydrox (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is in fact your personal opinion and if it is that strong I suggest you put this article up for AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I will, but it's good practice to leave articles some time to develop, e.g. if it would turn out she was actually notable for some other reason. I don't think "hihgly significant" is applicable in her murder. I've seen it used before only for people like Anders Breivik as the perpetrator of 2011 Oslo attacks and Lee Harvey Oswald as the suspected perpetrator in the assassination of JFK. --hydrox (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But "hihgly significant" can be applied on a number of different articles and subjects. Your reasoning above is like comparing apples and oranges.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But from what I know about the modelling industry is that not every model gets to do the cover of FHM magazine. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? I have honestly no idea, I am entirely uneducated in the whole modeling business. ESPN has it: "Tomlinson said Steenkamp, known simply as Reeva, was one of FHM's (formerly For Him Magazine) 100 Sexiest Women in the World for two years running, appeared in countless international and national advertisements and was one of the celebrity contestants on Tropika Island of Treasure, filmed in Jamaica." That could resolve the whole notability thing if we can get a reliable source that she was ranked by the magazine as one of the "top sexiest models" for two years running. --hydrox (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC) ed I can't find her on 2012 or 2011 lists.. --hydrox (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that FHM has different sexiest polls by country. For example, Tulisa Contostavlos, who won the United Kingdom readers' vote in 2012, would not be anywhere on the lists in FHM in other countries. Jim Michael (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, FHM does not just have an American edition but an South African one etc etc.. Reeva has obviously been featured in the South African edition of this magazine.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

She was #45 on their list in 2012. [1] Netrogeractor (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This Guardian article suggests notability:

Reeva Steenkamp and Oscar Pistorius were one of South Africa's most high-profile celebrity couples prior to her death.

The 30-year-old model, who with Pistorius formed South Africa's equivalent of Posh and Becks…

This weekend, Steenkamp was set to star in the South African reality television series Tropika Island of Treasure, in which celebrities and ordinary people compete in remote, exotic locations in a variety of daily challenges.

Named the first face of the cosmetics giant Avon South Africa, according to the profile, she has since featured in some of her country's leading campaigns and commercials, and was working on some "major projects".

--Carwil (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I question notability - so far everything she's notable for seems to be for being associated with Pistorius. The BBC Bio quotes a South Africa source as saying that she was "definately destined for success" which suggests that she was doing well and bubbling under,but not notable in her own right. However, happy to let it develop at present, and the idea of redirecting to the Pistorious article would seem insulting to her and her family at this time. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)'

In my opinion her unfortunate death was only the catalysator that made some user finally make her article. If it had been done two days ago and only based on her work as a model I think no one would have questioned her notability. I hope this does not overall turn into another "death/murder articles equals non notability". Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• SPEEDY DELETE-this article needs to be renamed "The death of her" (and ultimately 3 years from now "The murder of her") she herself was irrelevant before death--68.231.15.56 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So you say but there is no consensus concerning this ladies notability at this time. Irrelevant? How? Nothing indicates irrelevance except your own personal opinion based on no knowledge about her career. You need to show some respect for the dead.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i sorry did you just try to play some kind of misogenist bating retertick - her article is irrelevent only as it is named "let me be clear she was absolutlely irrelevant on the face of this earth before her meeting her murderer and before her death" - but most especially as a subject of notabliity on wiki--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You are irrelevant. Bye :)--BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

i guess that means you cannot stand up to that misogenistic bating statement above since you made no reference to it in your rebutal - again her article should exist but as "Death of Reeva" there she is notable--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Crawl back to the meta-debate cave that you came out of thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

"Crawl"? I'm sorry but are you threatening me with violence???--68.231.15.56 (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but who is now using childish retertick? I'm ending my part of this meta-debate right now. Obviously you are not worth the time. Bye now.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Notable: She was on the cover of FHM magazine in December 2011 in South Africa [2]. While she may not have been well known in the USA before her death, and while her murder will certainly overshadow other coverage of her life, she met the guidelines for notability prior to her death. Netrogeractor (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What does "may not have been well known in the USA before her death" have to do with anything? As far as we know she had never worked in or even visited that country. Being known (or not) in the US is of absolutely no relevance to the notability criteria . Roger (talk) 07:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That was my point, Roger. Editors saying she was not known prior to this incident seem to only be citing US news sources. Other editors have provided sources showing she met WP:N guidelines as a top model in South Africa, and was selected as the face of Avon South Africa 6 years ago [3]. Netrogeractor (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears that prior to her death, she was well-known in South Africa, but unknown in the rest of the world. I believe that notability in one country is sufficient for a person to have their own article. Jim Michael (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am South African and I disagree she was well-known in South Africa. She may have been known to FHM readers and the modelling crowd but not to the broader public. HelenOnline (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination

(Did You Know ...) DYK

— Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion here.

From Wikipedia Notability Page: 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. -=-=- IMHO Being ½ of a celebrity couple, a model, a Top 100 FHM "winner", and a TV actor ALL qualify her for notable status. I don't see how someone's personal opinion of one or more of these facts is relevant to the fact that she was in the public eye. She was even picked out on Olympic TV coverage in the crowd. She is clearly NOT a single event type of entry. More to the point, how many South African "gossip page" articles did she figure in? How large is the S.A. circulation of FHM? I'll go out on a limb (and inject my opinion) that if a large part of S.A. media mentioned her more that once or twice a year, then she was indeed notable. Anyone in S.A. care to do an archives search?216.96.76.60 (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Too many citations?

I see three cited references on every same information. So maybe you can remove less reliable ones first? --George Ho (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have trimmed quite a bit. HelenOnline (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Reeva Steenkamp → Death of Reeva Steenkamp – WP:BIO1E, this person appears to be WP:1E notable, that one event being her death. Therefore, this article should be restructured to be about her death, per the many other murder victim articles that have been rebuilt as murder articles 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - not sufficiently notable before the event. HelenOnline (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - notable as a model before the event (FHM magazine etc.) Racklever (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - notable as a model in her own right in South AfricaAla.foum (talk) 08:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - she is definitly notable as a model in her own right. Her murder was just the leading factor for an article finally being created.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support So are those above seriously suggesting that "she was ranked #45 in FHM South Africa's 100 Sexiest Women list in 2012" is a suitable criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia? I hope not. She is only notable for her death, which is a significant event. Therefore, the article should be renamed. --hydrox (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - sufficiently notable. Pkeets (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• support the overwhelming focus of any and all coverage is on her death. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - If a person is famous for more than just being victim (so, certainly known by at least a lot of people before she died), the article should keep to exist. In Wikipedia, there are so many articles of even less known amateur soccer players etc. This is also important to notice, because women are still underrepresented on Wikipedia. --OPolkruikenz (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI Wikipedia has very specific criteria on which soccer players are notable. Also, the fact that other stuff exists is not a valid argument to apply to any one deletion/renaming discussion. --hydrox (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think the Herald article, FHM cover, 'Tropika Island of Treasure' and probably other bits and bobs (which have been buried by the recent news in search results) would be more than enough to survive an AfD Jebus989^✰ 00:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Whoever closes this should also consider the comments made at Talk:Oscar Pistorius#Proposal to merge Reeva Steenkamp into Oscar Pistorius#Shooting incident, which was already in progress when this discussion was started. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - How do being a model and modeling on TV not make you sufficiently notable? --George Ho (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - She was the face of Avon in South Africa and achieved notability in her field prior to the start of her relationship with Pistorius. Netrogeractor (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Her notability is based mostly on the fact that she was Pistorius' girlfriend and now particularly for her death at his hand. Without that link she would most likely have remained just another pretty face. Occupying the 45th place in a single magazine's ranking of "sexiest women" is hardly sufficient - who was ranked first? As for being "the face of Avon", I don't think its very significant. Avon is not a very high profile cosmetics brand in South Africa, nowhere near brands such as Revlon, Yardley, Coty, Rimmel, etc. How many tv viewers and magazine readers can name any of the models (except for the handfull of truly global megastars) appearing in the zillions of adverts they see all the time? Roger (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see how coverage of Chandra Levy is difference from Reeva Steenkamp. They look the same to me, yet you treat Steenkamp's profession and significance as if they are lower than Levy's. --George Ho (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Who is Chandra Levy and why should we care that there is another article with problems? It's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. See WP:OTHERSTUFF Roger (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Besides, by WP guidelines, Chandra Levy should be renamed to Death of Chandra Levy. Adpete (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clearly a well-known personality in South Africa well before her death. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Her notability aside from her death is insufficient. Appearing on a reality show does not give notability. Being on TV ads does not give notability. Being on FHM South Africa's top 100 list does not give notability. (I went to the FHM South Africa site and did a spot check, I found (I think) 7 other girls from the top 100 list and only 2 had WP articles (one was an actor, one was a former Miss South Africa). Even the #5 girl didn't have a WP article). I propose renaming to Death of Reeva Steenkamp and the small amount of information on her life can be added there. Adpete (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For some reason you decide to leave out her modelling in your reasoning. Anyhow, you seem to be doing some fishing here. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned her TV ads, which were part of her modelling. But for completeness I'll assert that her she wasn't WP-notable as a model either - there are many, many models in the world, most not notable. I'm not sure what you mean by fishing. Adpete (talk) 11:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm a South African and don't consider her to have been notable, except for the circumstances surrounding her death. Park3r (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: her extremely notable death, combined with her marginally notable modelling career + FHM cover + reality show appearance and other tidbits, justifies a standalone article. -Zanhe (talk) 08:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Compromise suggestion The details of her death, and the trial of Oscar Pistorius be moved to Death of Reeva Steenkamp. This article is then edited to only contain details of her life, and has a short summary section on her death with a main article pointer to the Death of Reeva Steenkamp, and another pointer from the Oscar_Pistorius#Murder_charge section. Her notability can then be dicussed independently of the coverage of events surrounding, and subsequent to her death. Park3r (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. The murder trial is obviously a big story, and I think it deserves a separate article rather than a section at Oscar_Pistorius. Adpete (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • With the lead investigator being taken off and charged with attempted murder himself, clearly we need an article on the case. Whether we need a separate article on Reeva Steenkamp is yet to be seen. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support So are those above seriously suggesting that "she was ranked #45 in FHM South Africa's 100 Sexiest Women list in 2012" is a suitable criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia? I hope not. She is only notable for her death, which is a significant event. Therefore, the article should be renamed.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I might also add that her inclusion as a seperate article without the title of death is rather insulting to all the tireless editors of wiki - I will show you what is actually notable in a "woman" - this article was only created 9 years after her death - Ruth Sager - please continue to insult all of us by the ridiculous inclusion of this model's article.--68.231.15.56 (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support her notability arises out of her death, and how we know that the article was only created after her death so as per convention it should be renamed. LGA _talk^edits 02:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, Death of Reeva Steenkamp seems right. Rothorpe (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support notability directly related to her death.--Staberinde (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: see Nicole Brown Simpson, for example. --IIIraute (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF --Staberinde (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting Nicole Brown Simpson should be moved to Death of Nicole Brown Simpson? If you are not, I don't understand your point. --B2C 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  Point is that using other wikipedia article as argument is very often poor idea because it is quite possible that second article has it wrong or that cases just are not comparable. Maybe that other article should be indeed moved, maybe not, starting argument about it would only derail discussion here.--Staberinde (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  I referred to a similar case, with an article that was created almost 10 years ago and has had several thousand edits since then - seems noteworthy enough to me.--IIIraute (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This article should split into two articles: "Reeva Steenkamp" and "The death of Reeva Steenkamp". I agree with IIIraute - notability for "Reeva Steenkamp" should not be an issue anymore. RudiBosbouer (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose — I concur with the essay Wikipedia:What_is_one_event here. The idea that multiple angles of coverage: biography, funeral, Tropika Island appearance, etc. all are fruit of the poisonous tree of her murder, simply does not apply to Wikipedia notability standards. Steenkamp is the subject of articles on multiple events in her life up to and including her murder.--Carwil (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Her life exceeds out standard for notability. --B2C

Discussion

Isnt a similar discussion going on at the talk page of Oscar Pistorius?. Seems excessive or misleading to have two similar discussions going on.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the creator of this discussion did not know about the other discussion on Talk:Oscar Pistorius. Since this is the later one, I am not sure if this should be temporarily closed pending the outcome on the other talk page or if it should be left open. (Though, I already believe that this discussion will receive less focus of the two open discussions due to the other discussion.) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I say let this one be open because it seems that a similar consensus is emerging here too anyway.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that there's a discussion at Oscar Pistorius about the existence of this article as a separate article. This discussion is about the topic of the separate article. If the other discussion renders a merge result, this discussion will be moot. If it doesn't, then this discussion is valid, as it determines the name of this article as a separate article and its focus. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that statement. One would be that someone could make ten discussions about merging to either here or there and only one would need to pass by lack of attention for this to be moved. The second is that both discussion would be towards moving the article to a different location; One would move in into an article with a section on a different focus, the shooting, while the other would move it into a different spot and also with a different focus. (Still, unless an early closure is suggested, this discussion will continue on anyways.) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully the other discussion has now been closed Jebus989^✰ 10:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Problem solved.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a great example of why AfD should be Articles for Discussion. Something may have happened if all options were put on the table at once (merge/rename/delete/keep), but three separate discussions (see top of page) each posing a different solution will always skew the results toward Oppose. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly I'm beginning to think that only South African editors are qualified to have an opinion about this issue. Nobody outside of South Africa had ever heard of her while she was alive (unless they are serious OP fans who knew she was his girlfriend). How can anyone sitting in the US, Europe, Australia, etc honestly have an informed opinion about how well known she was to South Africans? The South African participants in this discussion are overwhelmingly in favour of the proposal. Roger (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Luckily we have notability guidelines rather than making decisions based on having heard of / not heard of someone. You haven't heard of every notable person, even if you happen to share their nationality! Jebus989^✰ 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You do know the difference between opinion and guideline right? I'm commenting how some people who sure as hell could not possibly know how well known or not she was in South Africa before her death, are expressing strong opinions about it - based entirely on press coverage after (and of) her death. Roger (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reeva Portrait.jpg

file:Reeva Portrait.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

and now renominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Split death to new article

Please add this split banner to the article

{{move portions|Death of Reeva Steenkamp}}

 Done - Camyoung54 talk 02:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Per some suggestions in the recently closed requested move, I suggest the death be split off to a separate article. For the discussion see talk:Death of Reeva Steenkamp

-- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a split. Her bio article is good enough to feature details on her death. I expect there will need to be one to cover Pistorius' legal issues, but it should be listed under his name, not hers. Pkeets (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

"she was shot dead by Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius" Shouldn't that read "she was >allegedly< shot dead by Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius"? Not that I'm following this very closely, but I thought Pistorius hadn't even been tried yet, much less convicted. Erjyx (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is no question about that fact, Pistorius has stated it in his own sworn testimony which is cited. The question relates to culpability. We cannot call it murder at this stage. HelenOnline (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Image of Reeva

The article needs an image of Reeva. The only suitable ones I could find are owned by Getty Images, but my attempt to upload one under a fair use rationale was speedily deleted by RHaworth(Talk) (see my Talk page here).

If you're able to provide a suitable image that satisfies Wikipedia copyright policy (in this case it would seem only a free content image) of Reeva please consider uploading it. If you need help with that you can email me from my Talk page (use the Toolbox menu on the left), but please leave a message on my Talk page that you have emailed me as I don't expect to be looking very often (perhaps once a week at most) at the mail account I have set up for this purpose.

Thank you. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This needs merging

Im sorry she is dead, but she was just a normal model, not worthy of her own oage on wiki. Someone who knows what they are doing needs to delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reality TV star

really!!! Come on. this needs removing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please can you talk before reverting?

Just one example, doing 1 episode of 1 show does not make you a star! Regualt attendee of red carpet events?? Who she used to date?? She likes horse riding?? Was once 40th in a sexy list?? This article is set up as a glowing CV, and thats not how wiki is supposed to work is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2014‎ (UTC)

I was merely reverting your addition of an inaccuracy and your removal of content without explanation. It is inaccurate to say that she was the victim of an "accidental" shooting: the judgment says nothing of the kind; it merely says the shooting wasn't murder. There is no dispute that he shot her dead, which is what the previous version said.

If you think the article includes trivia not meriting inclusion, by all means (carefully) change it. But consider posting a note here explaining what you've removed and why so that others can decide if they agree. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks will do. the lead is very emotive worded. the worst that he can be found guilty of now is not taking enought care and causing a horrific accident. It needs rewriting?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the judgment makes no mention of an accident. Judge Thokozile Masipa did not complete the reading of her judgment, but left open the possibility that he may yet be convicted of culpable homicide. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

culpable homicide means causing the death of a person by lack of attention and good judgement, ie an accident. Please change it, but that is what it means? I am not trying to be awkward here, but you must be able to see how bad this page is? If I removed all the chit chat there would be no page left. Lovely girl, very sad she is dead, but there is no need for a page?

from wiki: "Culpable homicide" has been defined simply[2] as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Negligence is not the same as an accident, and we don't even know if he is yet to be convicted of anything, as the judge adjourned the proceedings before completing the reading of her judgment. As for the quality of the page, by all means improve it. As for deleting it, information about the process is set out at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. However, it seems to me very unlikely that the article would be deleted, as Ms Steencamp would appear easily to meet the notability requirements for meriting a standalone article. Please see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more information. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

wow Helen has got her way, and managed to keep an innocent man slandered to look like he is a murderer for at least one more day. Well done helden, you should be proud, dont let little things like the truth and facts get in the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.28.57 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(Note: "Helen" and "helden" above refers to User:HelenOnline.) --83.255.57.82 (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Whether he's innocent or not was up to court to determine. Oscar was found guilty by the court and this is what we write. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. Brandmeister^talk 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)