Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Meredith Kercher

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Murder of Meredith Kercher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It doesn't appear that this is of encyclopedic importance: no assertion is made that this crime is more notable than the thousands of worldwide rapes and murders not included. Trans to wikinews or delete. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It was a notable murder due to the vast amount of news coverage it received, due to the (suspected) unusual circumstances and unusual participants in the murder (a wealthy well educated American and Italian) and the connections to internet culture. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the page is fully sourced and encyclopaedic. The murder is notable by virtue of the extensive and worldwide media attention. TerriersFan (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Whilst WP:NOT#NEWS should apply, the arguments of the two editors above me I also kind of agree with. Connections to internet culture though? What do you mean?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this AfD could ever be successful. The media coverage has been prolonged over a period of time, and it's notable worldwide but especially in the UK and in Italy.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be a case of a variant of missing white woman syndrome (murdered white woman syndrome), though, because she was obviously quite a pretty young woman, and indeed these cases seem to attract more media attention than do the murders of non-white people, older women, and men. There was a 19-year-old girl murdered in the city I live in recently, although from the pictures in the newspaper she wasn't a very attractive girl in my opinion. I don't know how Wikipedia should deal with such issues, really. Current consensus is that if something's had a lot of news coverage over an extended period of time, then it should be notable enough for an article. One article I'm surprised has never been AfDed yet is Murder of Rhys Jones, about a schoolboy who was shot with a gun. I also agree that this case is notable for its unusual circumstances.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connections to internet culture were that they all seemed to use websites such as myspace, facebook, and youtube and one of them was actually caught when he logged into his account. Regarding missing white woman syndrome Meredith Kercher was of mixed parentage, I think her mother is Indian or something so I'm not sure that really applies. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just checked the Rhys Jones article, and it seems to me that that article asserts notability, tying it to current events and showing the effects on other people. This one just gives the facts and allegations.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You want another "Murder of..." article which I think is less notable than this? Murder of Arlene Fraser, which seems to be notable only in Scotland.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, talk page discussions of notability are probably inherently biased. They can be a means to determine the level of interest, but the participants are self-selected to have an interest.--Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well sourced and coverage has extended over time. We don't have a guideline on crime articles outside of WP:NOT#NEWS and it is hairy to untangle the notable ones because even minor crimes can receive "it bleeds, it leads" headline coverage in unrelated places, especially if they involve apparently sympathetic victims, extensive mystery, or (in this case, it would seem) an attractive and unconventional suspect. In this case we have the quite rare circumstance of international coverage in at least three or four countries due to the diverse participants. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki Wikipedia is NOT news and shouldn't be. This article would do great as WikiNews. Tavix (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it wouldn't. This article is written in an encyclopedic tone, whereas developments about the news story would be written as seperate events as the news unfolded and the case continued.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, at this time Wikinews uses a license incompatible with the GFDL, so Transwiki is not possible. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be useful if you could explain your rationale for keeping the article - thanks.-h i s s p a c e

r e s e a r c h 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As above. Or do I have to invent a new one? Rothorpe (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See WP:NOREASON. You should give some reason for voting keep, because this isn't just a vote, it is an attempt to form consensus. A reason allows the closing admin to properly judge the outcome. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I originally created this article to satisy concerns about the nonnotability of Amanda Knox. From there, I have been involved in maintaing references in this article and preventing violations of BLP, so I am well acquianted with most of the problems this article has.
This case does have a historical context and can be made very relevant to topics in crime, media coverage and the international reaction to the murder, however I take personal responsiblity for failing to establish that context so far. I volunteer to write those sections and also to satisfy the dispute about recentism, but I am very busy at the moment and will be unable to do so before this AfD expires.
Also, I have said previously that if the suspects are released without charge or if this case goes cold, it will likely lose most of the notability and interest it has generated to this point. If that happens it should be renominated for an AfD and I will then vote for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would argue that the article is of encyclopedic importance as long as there is outdated and innacurate information about the case elsewhere on the internet. For example, a search for 'Meredith Kercher' on Google (01 Jan 2008) returns a Times article dated 7 Nov 2007 as the first result, in which much of the information has been rendered irrelevant by subsequent events. What is Wikipedia for, if not to present an up-to-date and balanced reference resource for a subject as a counterpoint to transient or sensational news and media coverage? 62.94.26.13 (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of the reasons this article is likely to remain of encyclopaedic importance is that the use of the cyberpresences of the victim and main suspects has, from the outset, been a key factor in the way the case has been reported in the media. This has meant that the case has been reported in a way that would have been unthinkable fifteen (or even ten years) ago. Yet it is likely that cyberpresences (in the form of blogs, or videos, and so on) will become increasingly important as the 21st century develops. For this reason alone, I would anticipate that this will be regarded as a landmark case, regardless of the outcome of the police investigation. It is one of the features which already distinguishes the case from the many thousands of murders which have been committed around the world in recent months.--Quywompka (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW no consensus. My own opinion is that it should be transwikied as "news" - notability is unlikely to extend beyond the terminus of investigation/sentencing/appeals (yes, I know, crystal-gazing - so is saying otherwise). But I can't imagine consensus emerging on this until six months after that. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is notable enough, as far as I see that most editors here have agreements to keep it. -- ADNghiem501 (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is very low level, with quite generical and wrong information. An article should be made out of proofs, documents, not newspapers or rumors (which is same think for what they shown as far). In this way it's just useless article, a case of wikipedia unsuccess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.26.90.39 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This user is a spammer whose site was blacklisted per WP:SPAM they have vandalized this article extensively to protest the block of their website. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008.
  • Comment: What website, cumulus clouds?
  • Keep per WP:NOTABILITY, consistent with the conclusions reached here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander. That's the Wikipedia line, but as I've said before - "I believe that it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it." -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant weak keep, since I fully agree with the above chap, in every respect. It is depressing that crap like this continues to be painstakingly and fully researched and organised while we barely have articles on some huge fundemental concepts and articles about prominent Pakistani and other officials who are creating history right now are barely written in English. Jdcooper (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant weak keep I agree absolutely with what was said in previous two comments. 71.217.84.229 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Take a look at the article Sarah MacDiarmid, which is about a woman who disappeared in Melbourne in 1990, and is thought to have been murdered. This appears to meet the Wikipedia guidelines, and is not as well referenced as this article. Also, I feel that even if the Kercher case does go cold (as suggested somewhere above), history will recall the murder as one of the more infamous of our time. 86.147.219.233 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&oldid=1087751166"