Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manslaughter of Darrell Rae McNeill

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. Wizardman 16:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manslaughter of Darrell Rae McNeill[edit]

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

Was this homicide notable? Maybe, but I think it's sufficiently questionable that it should be discussed. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this isn't wikinews DocumentError (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG this, this, and this add up to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for me. 109.78.200.105 (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Does not meet WP:LASTING. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:N: "...once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." 109.76.76.81 (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Somebody has removed from the article the only thing that might have made this shooting a little bit notable - the allegation that the killing was in retaliation for childhood sexual abuse of the shooter (a former Boy Scout) by the victim (a former Boy Scout leader). That angle resulted in quite a bit of publicity at the time, including from CBS News and MSNBC. However, the coverage was all at the time of the trial, nothing since. I could find no evidence that the crime has had any lasting notoriety or influence, thus is it simply a news item. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Notability is not temporary. Has an article subject recieved intense media coverage for an extended time like this one at the trial it doesnt suddenly become not notable when the coverage slows down. All stories gets less coverage when a trial is over etc. per GNG as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CRIME, sustained coverage past the time of the event IS required for a crime to be considered notable. "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.]" --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could be merged to Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases if people think that it's not an undue aspect of the case. I'm not really sure, as I've done limited research on the subject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 12 January 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.