Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Williams (murder victim)

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. DES ^(talk) 00:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Hannah Williams[edit]

murdercruft. Whilst newsworthy this isn't encyclopaedic. No evidence of any ongoing significance. We are now a news archive, or a court report. -Doc^g 14:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sort of thing belongs at Wikinews. Wikipedia should be for subjects which have lasting impact. Riana ⁂ 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the case was being discussed by Brookman 3 years later is evidence of lasting impact. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We're not a newspaper. /Blaxthos 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and this is not a newspaper article. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep although there was mostly only local media attention, but there was a major article in the Guardian, comparing the lack of police & media interest in her disappearance and murder with that of Amanda Dover, a girl from a wealthier background, missing & murdered about the same time (WP missed that one--our coverage seems to be erratic, and arguably should be improved not decreased). DGG 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC). Changed to Weak Keep on reconsidering the social aspects. DGG 17:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep due to social aspects mentioned above. There are also sources from two diffrent countries regarding this case boith the UK and the Irish Republic, so this was not some non-notable local crime in the end it had International media attention.--Lucy-marie 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy WP:NOT and per essay WP:NOTNEWS. Not every news story is encyclopedic. It must have a larger effect on society. Edison 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a news story. It is an encyclopaedia article about a murder case — one that is described in books about murder cases as a specific example. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 21:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In what way is it not encyclopedic?--Lucy-marie 22:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Resolute 05:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and this is an encyclopaedia article, not a newspaper article. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced. Wikipedians determining what is encyclopedic is too subjective. If its covered in the media by multiple, reliable outlets its inherently encyclopedic. --208.115.233.146 05:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, clearly falls under the news reports. No evidence of any mid or long term significance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is, as mentioned. Uncle G 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, but still doesn't push it over the bar for me. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this will be a notable case. She is one of many people who unfortunately are murdered. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. GassyGuy 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are indications that this is a significant case. I've just expanded missing white woman syndrome from a book that contrasts this specific case with the murder of Danielle Jones. Uncle G 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG and User:208.115.233.146 above. Much better to expand coverage than contract it. The article could be moved to "Hannah Williams" however. --Rbraunwa 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could, but it shouldn't be. This is not a biography of a person. It is an encyclopaedia article about a murder case, dealing with the case and with the way that the case was dealt with. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As pointed out above, the fact that the case was written about in books 3 years afterwards entirely shoots down that argument. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The media may have decided that the Murder of Amanda Dowler was more momentous than the Williams case, but that's not a decision we ought to be emulating. Even if it weren't notable in its own right, discussion of the Williams case adds value to the Dowler one. Besides, WP:NOTPAPER and all that. --Calair 23:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has lasting notability as demonstrated by Uncle G, written about in books several years later. We can afford to spare a couple kilobytes here. RFerreira 05:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what RFerreira wrote is accurate... we can certainly afford to spare a few K. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Uncle G, "he case was written about in books 3 years afterwards." --MichaelLinnear 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the social implications and on the addition of the sources from indipendent third parties in the form of publisihed books.--Jjamesj 07:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or quote AS AN EXAMPLE CASE in missing white woman syndrome. This murder does not push itself over the notability bar for me, per WP:NOT and WP:NOTNEWS. As a counter-example to missing white woman syndrome it may be significant, but an example is ALL that it is. Its ONLY notability rests on the imbalanced coverage. NONE of the murder/victim/murderer/trial/evidence/conviction/sentence are unusual or unique in any way whatsoever. Without such, this becomes just a commentary about the imbalanced coverage which is better suited to the main article. Without this commentary, this article is nothing more than a blow-by-blow account of the murder/trial/conviction and is thus a news story. Wikipedia is not a news archive. Zun aid ©® 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That this event has been referenced years after the conviction of the perpetrator, indicates that the murder is more notable than an average news story. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is relevant to the issue of coverage for missing pretty girl syndrome. LILVOKA 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are obviously present to illustrate notability. Everyking 05:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple non-trival reliable secondary sources provided. Therefore a notable topic under WP:N. Assize 13:41, 13 June 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.