Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danielle Van Dam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was No Consensus(see talk page) karmafist 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another tragic tale of death, but one that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a not a place for memorials. Caerwine 17:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Then delete the Samantha Runnion article as well. Tell me what is encyclopedic about that one? Both got them same amount of coverage in their respective California areas. Preceding was an unsigned comment by TripleH1976
- Comment In general, if this article is deleted you ought to delete this other one is not an argument for keeping the first, but deeting the latter. However, in Samantha's case, her tragic death led to the creation of a continuing non-profit foundation dealing with the art of and the proetection of children. Danielle's death only led to a lawsuit against the killer by her parents. Caerwine 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, and that's unprecedented too. It's not all the time a victims family sues the killer. Plus the MO of the crime parallels the abduction of Polly Klaas in 1993. Furthermore, the case is unique because Westerfield doesn't fit the typical mold of a pedophile. He wasn't a dirty man with a history of child molestation. He was a successful guy, an engineer, self-employed was living a good life at the time. Sure Samantha's mom made a foundation in her memory but it's not the first. It doesn't promise anything differently then the Jacob Wetterling Foundation or Klass for kids. Preceding was another unsigned comment by TripleH1976
- The foundation may not be particularly unique, but it does make a continuing impact on the surrounding community. Wrongful death suits are hardly novel. The main reason they aren't pursued all the time is that often the killer has no assets worth recovering. At most your arguments would mean that the article should be merged into that of David Westerfield, but the relevant details seem to already be there. A redirect might be worthwhile tho. Caerwine 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, and that's unprecedented too. It's not all the time a victims family sues the killer. Plus the MO of the crime parallels the abduction of Polly Klaas in 1993. Furthermore, the case is unique because Westerfield doesn't fit the typical mold of a pedophile. He wasn't a dirty man with a history of child molestation. He was a successful guy, an engineer, self-employed was living a good life at the time. Sure Samantha's mom made a foundation in her memory but it's not the first. It doesn't promise anything differently then the Jacob Wetterling Foundation or Klass for kids. Preceding was another unsigned comment by TripleH1976
- Comment In general, if this article is deleted you ought to delete this other one is not an argument for keeping the first, but deeting the latter. However, in Samantha's case, her tragic death led to the creation of a continuing non-profit foundation dealing with the art of and the proetection of children. Danielle's death only led to a lawsuit against the killer by her parents. Caerwine 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- ok do a redirect then. I think the article is worth keeping. In no way do I see it as a memorial, I simply gave a brief introduction to the girls life and then went into describing the events of her murder. TripleH1976 9:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep (Sorry,Caerwine! Cover your eyes if you don't want to read it again. 1. This article should not be candidates for deletion per policy since it has encyclopedic information in it. Merger should be discussed on the talk page of the article. 2. We're not writing for the future, we're writing for today. Today a large segment of the U.S. population wants to read about child murder victims not just the killer. Let's make this article an example of how to do it right. Please, think this through. This isn’t a smart move. Picture this: Someone writes a nice article about a child murder victim. They proudly announces it to people that care. It's deleted for lack of notability. Someone looks for the article, can’t find it, reads the deletion page, and notifies high profile child victim advocates. John Walsh, Marc Klaas, Nancy Grace, Dan Abrams, Greta Van Suteren, and more. Now picture this: Newspaper articles. Talk radio. Jimbo paired off against one of these advocates on cable news explaining why we delete well written articles about child murder victims, but keep thousands of dreadful articles. A foolish way to discover notability. 3. This is a famous case. In modern society we remember people and events by writing the facts down. If we don't put the information in encyclopedias and textbooks, she will be forgotten. I suggest we close this deletion case ASAP and move the discussion to the talk page.--FloNight 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Thank You FloNight."' I also do not understand why this article, is being considered for deletion. This case got more coverage then the Samantha Runnion case(referring to CourtTV coverage), yet that is not being considered for deletion because her mother dedicated a non-profit organization in her memory. --TripleH1976 12:01 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- This article should not be deleted. If you feel the information and the way it's presented has too much of the tone of a memorial, edit it. But victims of notorious crimes are, like it or not, figures in history and should be discussed in a comprehensive encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.119.135 (talk • contribs)
This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, cleanup of too overly personal material. -- Natalinasmpf 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. This was a bizarre case, on of whose elements was the parent's participation in swinging clubs that is not even mentioned in the article and which led cops to uncover a lot of uncomfortable stuff in the community. Balance this and it will work. Jtmichcock 04:00, 11 December 2005 (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.