Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of James Sanders

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. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of James Sanders

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

fails WP:EVENT, WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTNEWS applies. no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep lots of references from independent third parties. I don't know anything about the nominator, but in general deletion nominations such as this make me wonder if someone wants to hide the story. Information in this article may help keep others alive. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. Murders often receive spikes of coverage but needs longstanding notability. Also WP is not a tool for keeping others alive regarding types of murders. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I actually think the relevant notability guidelines are sort of contradictory, or at least interpreted in a contradictory way. WP:EVENT can't make demands above and beyond those of WP:GNG because the lede of WP:N says that a topic which satisfies either GNG or EVENT is notable. Since GNG is met in this case, EVENT doesn't need to be. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem relevant in this case, though I'd welcome elaboration on which part the nominator thinks applies; and WP:VICTIM refers to biographical articles, which this isn't. 10:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

a fatal car crash or child abuse case in court will get lots of coverage, however for events like this murder and all murder cases on WP. WP:LASTING applies. Otherwise every murder reported in the media gets a WP article. Indeed WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG in these cases. Or a big snowstorm got lots of coverage months ago, does that mean an article is created for it. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above makes lots of sense and I'd agree if it were an assessment of how notability ought to work; however I don't see how you can reach that conclusion from a reading of WP:N itself, which I'll quote in full: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (emphasis as original) It seems very clear that meeting the GNG alone is always sufficient, regardless of whether any subject-specific guideline is met.

As something of an aside, I think WP:LASTING is a pretty incoherent guideline. It's phrased almost exclusively in the positive sense, i.e., "events with lasting effects are notable" but only explicitly says that events without lasting effects aren't if they're earthquakes or storms. So to read LASTING as saying that a murder with no obvious lasting effects isn't notable is something of a stretch; but maybe we're supposed to take it as implied. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Craigslist Killer#Notable Internet homicides. This is essentially a run-of-the-mill crime, per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. The one detail that makes this special is the Craigslist aspect, and we have an article on that. Boil it down to a paragraph and add it to the list in Internet homicide/Craigslist killer. The changes in Craigslist's warnings hinted at but not explained should also be added -- this is a good opportunity to improve both the Internet homicide and Craigslist articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - third party sources, and plenty of them. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested. This is undue emphasis on something that is in its nature quite trivial. The GNG is quite explicit that it does not necessarily mean we must have an article regardless of there being many sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this case went on, and was reported on, for some time, thus passing WP:LASTING] and WP:GNG. In the alternative, merge per DGG. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2013 (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.