Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jamie Gao

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 delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jamie Gao[edit]

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

Unremarkable death, drug-related homicide that does not warrant a Wikipedia article, fails to satisfy WP:N/CA and WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete High profile crime at the moment (largely due to the prominence of one of the men who have been arrested), but it's way too soon to judge if will have any lasting impact. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roger Rogerson. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ish. It's absolutely a notable killing, although the article does the most appalling job of pointing that out. Roger Rogerson is one of the most notorious former police officers in Australian history, having gone from being one of the more famous officers on the force, to beating several criminal charges, to being convicted of non-violent ones, and ultimately revelling in a celebrity status attained as a result. His co-accused is also a high-profile former police whistleblower. As a result of this, the case is receiving an enormous amount of media coverage, and is deeply unlikely to be a flash-in-the-pan. I disagree that a redirect to the Rogerson article is appropriate, a) because it would invariably lead to recentism issues in that article by shifting the focus away from the rest of his story, and b) because it focuses Wikipedia coverage on him over his co-accused, which strikes me as being a BLP violation. This said, the article was totally useless when written and has only been marginally touched since then, and I do feel as if - while it's absolutely a notable case - there isn't much point having an article if no one can be bothered actually covering any of the above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic case of "recentism". It was in the papers last week and might be again when it goes to court but the accusation/allegation is that two ex-cops-turned-dodgy-enforcers killed a drug dealer and kidnapper. And? Redirecting to only one of those accused is a major problem. He's been accused and charged but there has been no trial, let alone conviction. Automatically associating a crime (without explanation) to one of two alleged perpetrators screams WP:BLPCRIME violation to me, even though it's only of interest because he is allegedly involved. Just delete this and be done with it. If it turns out they launch a royal commission, or something, as a result of the case then we can revisit it. Sadly, just another murder. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst Roger has been charged, I'm sure his lawyers aren't happy with this being mentioned in a WP article so WP:BLPCRIME as Stalwart says as well. lastly, "absolutely a notable killing" is not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article is about the death of a non-notable person in a controversial and sub-judice crime = WP:NOTNEWS + WP:RECENT. Wayne 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. A redirect to Roger Rogerson would be appropriate, should he be found guilty. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wayne_aus and Doctorhawkes and others.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2014 (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.