Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Denise McGregor

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. Decent arguments on both sides leading to a valid difference of opinion on the applicability of the notability guidelines. E.M.Gregory's research suggesting some potentially usable sources. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Denise McGregor[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIME. No significant ongoing coverage. The reference titled "unsolved-melbourne-murders-you-may-never-have-heard-about" says it all. TheLongTone (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the references i used shows that it made the front page of The Age newspaper at the time. Something that makes the front page - and The Age was a high brow broadsheet, not a low market tabloid - is pretty notable, yet the article has been AfD'd? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Front page news, graphic TV reenactment and interest in the cold case 35 years later satisfy WP:CRIME. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per WP:CRIME.BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep There does seem to be ongoing interest is this case.[1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing interest??? One journo desparate for a topic for the weeks column mentions it.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CRIME. The victim was not notable nor was the crime "unusual" nothing persistent in coverage. Article makes grand claim of being one of the most infamous cold cases in Melbourne with zero evidence. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment something that made the front page of a high brow broadsheet when it happened and had a Mr. Cruel type reenactment that was so graphic it was banned by the broadcasting authorities? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. Subject falls short of WP:CRIME and WP:EVENT, as well as WP:GNG. Front-page coverage of a heinous, horrifying crime of this sort is usually routine and doesn't, in itself, establish notability. See WP:GNG ("significant coverage"). Sorry, Mr. Austin. Rebb ing 07:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think you're right. This should be closed as delete. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[2], [3], [4]. Has someone duone a good search on Australian news arcives? A 1978 murder needs that before deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of the Delete !votes claims that the article subject has had plenty of media coverage, but is basically referring to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That is irrelevant to notability. This article should be kept.BabbaQ (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ther is a difference between substantial & trivial coverage. Coverage of this case is of the latter variety; articles that are essentially lists of unsolved murders. Of which there are many.TheLongTone (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate, BabbQ is using WP:ITFLOATSMYBOAT. His problem not mine

Toney, i may call you Toney, mayn't i? There is no such thing as WP: ITFLOATS MYBOAT, outside your fevered imagination. Interesting strategem? I take it you are trying to confuse people! Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I'm not Australian and am not familiar with search engines down under, Here: [5] (DAVID HELLABY / 1951-2009; A giant in journalism

TULETT Fred. The Southland Times [Invercargill, New Zealand] 16 Sep 2009: 11.) It also ran in the The Dominion Post (Wellington) is a 2009 obit on Aussie journalist Dave (David) Hellaby who was nominated for a "Logie Award for the TV script Who Killed Denise McGregor. I continue to suspect that better searches would turn up more sourcing, but that what has been found justifies keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any confident signs this can be better improved aside from the current and only details. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the very source verifies it's not a well-known event, then it shouldn't be included on here. Parsley Man (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ultimately Wikipedia is for non-Wikipedians, not the likes of our merry few. We painstakingly parse these things through the lens of our beloved WP:GNG, but mere mortals who are stuck in bed with the flu, or waiting for a flight, enjoy being able to go down Wikipedia rabbit holes about salacious subject matter like local/national/just particularly disturbing murders (plane crashes are my own non-secret shame; so sue me). I think this crosses the WP:GNG level in any event given the ongoing interest in certain Australian journalistic circles about the case. It is certainly more notable than some go-nowhere start-up company offering a "solution" to something that was never a problem—not that a comparison is appropriate, but I see way too many of those articles treated more seriously than this one that is actually, in contrast, marginally fascinating. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2016 (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.