Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leanne Tiernan

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. With 3 people for keeping the article as Murder of Leanne Tiernan, and 6 for deletion, this is (barely) short of a consensus for deletion, especially given that the last "delete" opinion cites WP:BLP1E, which does not apply to dead people. Sandstein 05:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Tiernan[edit]

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

This is a recreation of the article Murder of Leanne Tiernan, this article fails WP:BIO and also WP:NOT unfortunately people get murdered all the time and just because the victim was a minor doesn't make it any more notable. Here is link to previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Leanne Tiernan Mo ainm~Talk 08:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the Nom the first time this was up for AfD was spot on "Muderered schoolkid. Hit the newspapers at the time. No evidence of notability beyond that. Not encyclopedic", that is not to say that it is a tragic case but just one of probably hundreds that took place worldwide on 26 November 2000. Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the last AFD got this right and the article should be deleted again. She is not notable and neither is her murder. There is also a copyright problem with the text of the article. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the Kidnap and Murder section are almost word for word from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2116337.stm which is used as the source. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nice as this article is it is not a biography it would potentially work as a Murder of article or a broader Article on the murderer but this one is not notable a biography please see Murder of Amanda Dowler and Peter Sutcliffe for how it shold be done.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Murder of Leanne Tiernan (first choice) or Keep. Clearly meets WP:N and WP:BIO. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. WP:NOTNEWS is the only real reason I can see to delete, but the depth of coverage (the case study in particular) would seem enough to overcome that. I'll note that no one above has given a reason to delete other than "not notable" and as the article clearly meets WP:N (or at least a "Murder of" article does) those !votes aren't exactly policy/guideline based... Hobit (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Under the current title it is not notable as she herself was not a notable person outside of the murder case. The current article title and the subsequent content is what is being discussed. Also the above are not votes as each one give differing reasons for deletion. The root of the reasoning may though be the same policy but that is irrelevant. Move to Murder of Leanne Tiernan or better still incorporate in to the article regarding the murderer. If it is incorporated in to the articvle on the murderer all the sentimetality must be removed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This kind of murder gets a lot of publicity at the time, and again if the culprit might be released prematruely, but tends to be forgotten (except by the bereaved). If kept, Rename to "Murder of ...". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. The case received extensive coverage over a long period - it was a high profile investigation and trial. Being cited as forensics case study by the UK Forensics service, another forensics website, and a scholarly article[1] is a sign that the coverage was not just routine. It also got covered by Jane's[2] and Crimewatch.[3] "Tends to be forgotten" is no reason for deletion as notability is not temporary, and it wasn't forgotten in Yorkshire: [4][5] I don't understand how editors believe that deleting such high profile criminal cases improves Wikipedia, as this is not trivia or tabloid fluff. Fences&Windows 20:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there was a TV documentary called "Killer in the Woods" made about the case:[6] People do get murdered all the time but that's a terrible argument for deletion: we should have an article on each and every notable case, and this is a notable case. Fences&Windows 20:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if renamed otherwise per F & W. This is not a biography, and probably never can be because the poor victim is not notable. The killer has a far greater claim to notability, and this probably could be turned into an article about him without much difficulty. I have no problem with a "Murder of" type article, although my experience is that they tend to develop too much along the lines of a memorial. Still, either one would be an acceptable way to refocus this content without deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:BLP1E. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (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.