Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Alfred Kunz

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Alfred Kunz[edit]

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

Having reviewed the previous AfD, I think the editors involved were in error. This case is not notable, and the claim made that the victim was notable before being murdered is not supported in the existing article, nor by a cursory search for reliable sources.

In addition, claims of the connection of this case to the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is not supported by reliable sources.

I think this article was voted into existence, rather than a careful consideration being given to the arguments presented by the keepers. But there is no deadline. So delete. Cerejota (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VICTIM. As I stated in the previous AFD, the subject's only real claim to notability is the fact that he was murdered. The prior AFD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Kunz (Catholic priest).4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep there's no question that this article fails wp:victim, but I think that the notability standard is wrong in this case. there is ongoing discussion of the case, and it's clearly important to a lot of people, and covered in reliable sources, e.g. this and this and this. if i knew how to do it, i'd try to get the notability standard changed to include victims who, in their victimhood, provoked ongoing discussion of the crime they were the victim of. for instance, Kitty Genovese. she also clearly fails wp:victim, but nevertheless is clearly notable. obviously this case is obscure compared to that one, but nevertheless it seems to be generating a lot of discussion, and for over ten years, and thus I think it should be kept. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment oh, and also, the article is titled "Murder of Alfred Kunz", so no one is claiming that the victim himself is notable, but only that his murder is notable, which is parallel to the case of kitty genovese. i think that there are sufficient reliable sources to support notability of murder, without claiming notability of victim per se. this was discussed on the kitty genovese talk page in relation to that crime: Talk:Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Name_of_article. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep It's an unsolved murder that is notable and has received extensive press coverage. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since apparently I was not clear or wikilawyery enough in the nom, this fails WP:NEVENT, the case itself is not notable (As I said, but it seems not clearly enough). There is absolutely zero national media attention on this case, and there barely was when it happened. This is one of the thousands of murders that populate the news cycle each year, none of them notable enough for an encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still vote keep for the reasons given above. It has merited news coverage in large regional newspapers and remains unsolved. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although there has been some coverage of the event (i.e. murder), it does appear to fail the sub-guidelines at WP:EVENT. I would not object to the information being merged to a "Crime" subsection in Dane, Wisconsin. Location (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unsolved murder, with alot of press coverage and details that makes it stand out.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of press coverage when it happened doesn't make an event notable. What details? The way I see it, the only uncommon fact is that the murder was of a priest, and that is not enough for notability. --Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Weak Keep, see below.) A brutal unsolved murder, but not apparently connected with any larger theme or with ongoing major publicity. I assume it got local/regional news coverage at the time, although none is cited in the article. But stories published since the time of the murder are not in Reliable Sources or mainstream media. I couldn't find the coverage in "large regional newspapers" that Bookworm mentioned. The references at the article, and cited above by Alf, are mostly from minor or fringe media, or mention this case only in passing. Google News archive found only one hit. If the case is "still generating a lot of discussion," I could not find it and the links provided here do not demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not sure how you got only one hit out of google news. i got close to 300, although clearly not all are about the murdered priest. here is one from the milwaukee journal sentinel published four years after the murder. this one and this one, also cited above are from the last couple of years. they're not from a fringe source, but from The Capital Times, which is at least regional; it's certainly a real paper. the first of these two does more than just mention the case, it explains that the cops are sure they know who did it but don't have evidence to indict. this shows ongoing television coverage in madison over the years (see list of other stories at bottom of article). Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure either; this was my result. The links you have given here are very helpful; would you consider adding some of them to the article? It would strengthen it quite a bit. Rereading WP:EVENT, this kind of coverage might supply enough "depth, duration and diversity" to qualify as a "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i will certainly add them to the article, although i'm not sure when i'll have time to do it. i usually do try to add sources to articles up for deletion if i can find them, but i just haven't had the time to work through this one. i'm concerned that the afd discussion is about to expire, though. i'm not sure exactly what to do in a case like this. i definitely do not have time to work them cleanly into the body of the article today. how about if i add them to the talk page so they're preserved, along with a note that they need to be integrated, and i'll try to get to it within the week? — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment OK, I found some time and threw in a few more sources and up-to-date information. see what you think. there's probably more that could be done, but maybe this is enough for now, give that there's no deadline and stuff. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not the most notorious crime in the world, but it does seem to satisfy the criteria of receiving coverage with "depth, duration and diversity." It needs more sources like the ones Alf just added (I used one of them to add notability to the lead paragraph). Right now way too much of the article is sourced to the non-neutral, conspiracy-flogging article in the Las Vegas Weekly. Those links should be replaced with mainstream news sources to strengthen the article. I just replaced two of the links, but I'd like to see that article gone entirely. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - mostly because it essentially has no coverage as a national story. However, it does have reasonably significant regional coverage (including a behind pay-wall Chicago Tribune story) that is continuous over a long period showing interest (several years worth) and importance. Moogwrench (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2011 (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.