Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Armstrong

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Armstrong[edit]

Minimal ghits, and nothing to assert notability as a person (only as a murder victim). Giggy _U^CP 02:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:DGG once pointed out that Ghits are not a good measuring stick for minor historical figures who lived before we were born. It has a reference in some encyclopedia, and I believe a murder victim is not inherently nonnotable. Compare Gail Miller, whose is notable not so much for being a murder victim as for being the murder victim that produced a wrongful conviction - but if we consider the wrongful conviction irrelevant to her, we're left with the fact that she's a victim of a murder. I don't know. Shalom ^Hello 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The Ghits thing is a problem for any subjects that existed before modern media, but sources aren't particularly relevant here as being a murder victim isn't notable unless the case is notable. (The "Encyclopedia" referenced details 540 cases from the last two centuries, I doubt many of those cases are notable). Saikokira 03:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So we're going to list all 540 of those cases in the encyclopedia? No, we're not. No notability here. Realkyhick 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How can a case coming from an existing encyclopedia not be encyclopedic? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply being unsolved is not notability, even if there is an encyclopedia collecting them. Without more sources, or any that explain why this is notable, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The use of an outside encyclopedia for notability has been discussed at WT:N, and here on occasion; reasonably enough, it depends on the encyclopedia. some books with that in the title are uncritical compendiums of unsourced material; some are sourced, but cover everything within scope, notable or not. It's from Facts on File, a supplier of very well thought of academic and public library references, so I think the information would be reliable. If there's a source given, we can cite it--Reallyhick, you seem to have it around--could you check for us? Since it contains only a few hundred cases, I would be prepared to say they might well all be notable. There are about two million articles in the English Wikipedia, so 540 is a tiny drop in the bucket. We probably have tens of thousands of articles on crimes, and relying on good reference books as a way to focus on some of the more notable ones makes sense. DGG (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As always a considered opinion, DGG. But here's the rub. The book's official description says that it includes "legendary unsolved crimes" as well as "disturbing cases ... that have continued to spark interest", "cases involving prominent figures ... as well as those with a major social impact". Yet this article tells me exactly nothing about why this case is included in the encyclopedia, let alone why it should be in Wikipedia. I'm perfectly willing to accept this book as a source but I'm not willing to uncritically accept its criteria for inclusion as notability. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - I dont think a mention in a book is enough to give "historic notability" as required by WP:NOT. Maybe if the book was solely about the subject, then I'd say there's historic notability, but not in this case. Corpx 06:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allowing this to stay would be setting a bad precedent for articles about the thousands of otherwise non-notable unsolved crimes. Just because a specialized encyclopedia has an article about this crime doesn't obligate WP to as well. We don't have articles on unremarkable hospital cases documented in medical journals. Caknuck 07:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is still not paper, and there are really no limits as to the depths of our coverage of historical crimes. At least one secondary source exists, and if someone went digging in newspaper archives in the area, more could likely be added. "Notability", after all, is a guideline that seeks to insure, not actual fame, but rather the existence of independent, reliable sources. That much has been met here. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every story covered in the news will have notability, but articles must demonstrate "historic notability" per WP:NOT#NEWS. This would be perfect for wikinews, but a transwiki there is not possible. Corpx 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone chose to write an article recently about a sixty year old murder, that would seem to make a strong prima facie case for historic notability in itself. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. I've seen the suggestion several times that wikinews would be a better place for these articles about old murder cases. It simply isn't true: wikinews only accepts articles about current events. JulesH 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt realize that. :o Corpx 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topic is covered in a specialist encyclopedia by a mainstream publisher. Therefore, I really see no reason it shouldn't be covered in this encyclopedia. JulesH 14:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are about 600,000 murders a year in the world, calculated from [1] and the present world population. The "Encyclopedia" is said above to list 540 as more significant than the others over a 2 century period, or around 3 per year. It appears to be a reliable reference work with editorial control. Therefore I see it as providing some degree of support for notability, but it is still just one reference. I see no evidence (it could be out there) that this murder, out of the hundreds taking place a year in the UK in the 1940's (based on the population and murder rate of that country at that time)had unusual notability or effects on society or enduring interest sufficient to justify an article. By no means am I willing to turn over editorial control of Wikipedia to an individual who manages to get a "crime encyclopedia" published. This crime sounds like a run of the mill, dime a dozen murder. I could show you its equal dozens (perhaps hundreds) of times a year in any large US city. More research and sourcing is needed to show it has the notability of the murder of Bobby Franks by Leopold and Loeb the prototype "thrill killers", or of Charles Lindbergh Jr, the baby killed in the Lindbergh kidnapping , or of disappeared and said to be murdered Judge Crater, or of the murdered wife of Hawley Harvey Crippen, who was the first murderer nabbed via radio. I would expect that many of his 500 plus murders already have or deserve articles based on long term press , documentary, and book coverage. In any enent, we generally have an article about the crime, not the otherwise non-notable victim. Didn't he provide references? Edison 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We don't need to remove content just to save space. --W.marsh 13:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, why delete anything? Giggy _U^CP 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, content that hasn't been covered by reliable independent sources may not be accurate, so we need to ensure that such sources exist. That doesn't seem to be an issue for this article. Also, carrying things that appear to be advertisements would damage Wikipedia's reputation. That doesn't seem to be an issue for this article. Seriously, I fail to see a good reason to delete here. And people have been arguing that the large number of similar cases is a reason not to cover this one, but WP:NOT#PAPER is an explicit rebuttal of that idea. We can cover these cases, so why not do so? JulesH 11:04, 30 July 2007 (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.