Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corryn Rayney

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep . Already moved to new title, should be edited so as to be an article about the event and not a biography. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corryn Rayney[edit]

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

Classic WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. High profile murder case currently underway, but I cannot see any prospect this will have lasting historical significance. Certainly, the article does not explain why there would be any. Moondyne (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of almost any murder trial. The same could also be said for a huge amount of the stuff in wikipedia concerning the current lineup of football teams, for example, which changes all the time.

As to notability, this is the most sensational upper-class intra-family murder trial that has occured in Australia for decades, since the murder of Megan Kalajzich murder. It is one of the most notable murder trials since the trial of the man who murdered Peter Falconio. It is the first murder, to the best of my knowledge, that has alleged to have been committed by a barrister. It is notable as to the delay between the death occuring and the suspect being charged, and the apparently circumstantial nature of the actual evidence. The fact that the articles about these murders years ago still tend to attract comments and edit-warring from POV partisans of the cases is an inherent indicator of notability.

As to your complaint that the article does not explain notability, that is intentional at this point in time. Only very basis, undisputed facts have been included. Details about the subject of the article and the circumstances of her death which are in any way controversial or disputed have not been included, precisely to avoid any POV issues. It certainly would be possible to enhance the article to address notability, but to do so would tend to require the inclusion of currently disputed facts which are the subject of a currently on-going trial, and in my view that is not a desirable situation at this time.

As to POV, after I created this article two weeks ago, I found out that there had been a previous one, which had been deleted. And now there is a campaign to delete this one. I have no connection to anyone connected with this case and no agenda, I'd wonder what the connection, POV, and agenda is for the proponent to delete it.Eregli bob (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The same could be said of almost any murder trial"—which is why almost all murder trials aren't Wikipedia-notable. For both your examples above, books were written, they were internationally reported and telemovies made. Sensational is your own and the newspapers' POV and has nothing to do with notability. Your concerns in the last paragraph are unnecessary. Moondyne (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the extensive public interest and media coverage, this case might be worthy of a mention in the article List of specific crimes in Western Australia. However, the story has a long way to run yet, and the possibility of a heart attack has even been mentioned by a pathologist in the trial. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well indeed. Most murders involve one drunken lowlife murdering another drunken lowlife. Or their spouse. Or one crim bumping off a rival crim. The suspect is usually obvious and usually dealt with, without it being front-page news for years. Most murder cases are not particularly notable. Thats what makes these upper-class murders unusual and distinctive. Books and a TV series were made about the Kalajzich case, and this case may be headed the same way. This case is also legally interesting, because it appears that the police have only circumstantial evidence. If they had a murder weapon, or DNA evidence, or could pinpoint the actual scene of the crime, the evidence would have been mentioned by now. This case has had some overseas media coverage. I think that your arbitrary personal decision, that this case has no prospect of enduring notoriety, is wrong.Eregli bob (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not arbitrary. WP:CRIME guideline re victims of crime is specific:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

So far the article hasn't explained how this has any long-term significance. That it might sometime in the future is crystal ball gazing - I strongly doubt that it will but thats only my opinion. And its only my opinion, not a decision. And I never used the word "notoriety"—that has a slightly different connotation. Moondyne (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out, I have only included basic and undisputed facts about the victim of this high-profile murder. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I am not going to try to keep up with the daily claims and counter-claims of the evidence as the trial proceeds. It would not be appropriate to do so. If the defendant is acquitted, in the absence of any other suspect, it is quite likely that this event will acquire an enduring notoriety similar to the OJ case in the United States. If the defendant is not acquitted, the trial will be somewhat notable as there appears to be no murder weapon, no definite actual cause of death, and no evidence directly implicating the suspect. They had to borrow a judge and a prosecutor from other legal jurisdictions to handle the case. There are over 77,000 Google hits for the name of the victim. It has been reported daily in the newspaper for months. This is evidence of notability.Eregli bob (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have twice now demanded that an explanation of notability should be included in the article itself, I'll now go and add some as per your instruction. But don't you go coming back tomorrow and complaining that it "opinion" or "speculative". Is that what you want ? I'd actually suggest it is better to leave it alone, with just the basic, undisputed, and uncontroversial facts about who this person was, until the trial is completed. As for changing the title of the article, I'd suggest leaving that alone for the time being also, because "Murder of Corryn Rayney", "Unsolved Murder of Corryn Rayney", or even "Trial of LLoyd Rayney", may turn out to be the most suitable title.Eregli bob (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Wanda Beach Murders and the Beaumont children disappearance seem to have articles, which nobody is clamouring to delete. And who, under 60 years old, remembers them ?Eregli bob (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Child murders during Australia's age of innocence™ and committed before the internet, which enabled the cases to develop historical significance before the articles were written. I have no problem with either of these. But please, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is applicable here. Moondyne (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a minimum, this must be moved to Alleged murder of Corryn Rayney or similar, as she isn't notable independently of the crime. The coverage to date far outweighs the routine, and whilst in an ideal world, waiting for the trial to conclude would be ideal (leading to a userfy outcome) if enough calm eyes remain on this to maintain it in a neutral state, then I'll vote keep. If I was to do some crystalballing, this is the OJ Simpson equivalent for Perth. I'm sure a few journos/academics are already writting books about it. The-Pope (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is an "alleged murder". It is a murder with an "alleged suspect". Even if she died of a heart attack during some kind of assault, as one doctor suggested, rather than a direct injury, thats still a murder. Nobody has suggested that she just died of a heart attack naturally and the rest is some kind of cover-up.Eregli bob (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We must calm down and await proper authority for use of such technical terms of which, thankfully, Wikipedians are not the judges. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current title is probably not the optimal title for this event. However I do not think the article should be deleted, because the death of Mrs Rayney and subsequent events are notable. I've posted a list of factors which I think make this event more notable than typical murder cases, on the talk page for the article. I don't think this article should be deleted, I think its contents should be moved at some point to a more suitable title.Eregli bob (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Corryn Rayney covers the situation as it stands. Hack (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only points of interest beyond the normal run of murder trails is that because she and the alledged perpertraitor both worked in the courts the Judge and prosecutor for the case have had to come from other states. Thats possibly sufficiently unusual to warrant an article but this article doesnt cover this particular aspect in any detail from memory available sources dont either. Gnan garra 11:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps the name of the page should be changed to one of the suggestions above, but this is certainly a case that will be discussed and written about for many years. There is a lot of information than can be added to this page as it is, but I am refraining as the trial is in progress.Athomeinkobe (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but (for now) move to Death of Corryn Rayney per several views above and to more fully conform with notability guidelines. Comparable with Death of Azaria Chamberlain. Bjenks (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least move to Death of Corryn Rayney or similar. Pretty simple case of WP:ONEEVENT here, and unfortunately being a murder victim is not unusual enough to make one notable in this day and age. This is in no way comparable to Azaria Chamberlain as suggested above; that case became well known internationally, this case is not well known outside of WA and legal circles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Moving to Death of Corryn Rayney, because there is clearly no consensus for deletion and sufficient consensus for such a move. Bjenks (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Death of Corryn Rayney, would be more appropriate to be sufficient within notability guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.