Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Shane Todd

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. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Shane Todd[edit]

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

Tragic but fails WP:VICTIM. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL also apply.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC) ...William 01:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of now I haven't finished writing the article, so maybe the notability isn't obvious yet. But this is not a victim memorial. It's not even a biography, so WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTMEMORIAL don't apply. It's an article about an event, and the event is far more significant than a passing news item. The notability comes from the fact that this case involves evidence about a possible homicide cover-up, an already controversial Chinese telecom company's possible acquisition of dual-use American technologies with significant military applications, as well as serious allegations of misconduct by Singapore authorities. It has received pretty significant news coverage.

The more relevant notability guideline is WP:CRIME, not WP:VICTIM. WP:CRIME states that crimes that are breaking news items are likely to be deleted, but this is not a breaking news item. The death was seven months ago. The investigation--and the blowback in Singapore--is recent. TheBlueCanoe 01:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~; changed to Keep. If anything, the incident has instigated controversies involving entities more important than those typically involved in similar ones. A quick search of Google News shows this. IMO, if this has stirred up enough controversy and trouble (beyond the scope of a typical incident of this nature), an article may be appropriate. dci | TALK 02:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This death involves a possible confluence of PRC military espionage, USA national security, and subornation of Singapore's police and judiciary by the PRC. This article is about a possibly politically motivated possible murder with international implications. For that reason it's topical and deserves to stay. Tapered (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic intrigues me and is the subject of more than sufficient coverage to meet all applicable guidelines. Andrew³²⁷ 06:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is about a suspicious death of a US citizen employed in a Singaporean research institue involved in a joint project with a Chinese technology company. This suspicious death has been widely reported and investigated by reputable international media and now involves the Singaporian and US authorities, while the victim's family is asking for a more thorough and transparent investigation of the suspicious death of their son, based on various troubling facts which contradict the initial report provided by the Singapore police. Llouest

Keep and WP:SNOW. Plenty of WP:RS coverage, and as already noted above, this is not primarily about the victim. Jpatokal (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup Notable enough to pass WP:GNG, but requires cleanup. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. International controversy now covered in dozens of sources. Many internal and external links can and should be added. BlueOceanStrategy (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — BlueOceanStrategy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (refactored)[reply]

Keep This does not appear to be a run-of-the-mill death and has enough international coverage to meet the guideline specifications at WP:VICTIM. By the way, WP:CRIME links to the same place and there is not difference between the two. Mkdw ^talk 20:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article implicates national defense, foreign policy, human rights, possible international criminal enterprise, espionage, and the federal witness murder statute and is imminently newsworthy. Plus, if Todd was murdered the deletion of this article would play right into the hands of his murderers. ~~Family Friend~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreelacj (talk • contribs) 23:05, 25 February 2013 (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.