Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla

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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a raiontale: This afd has been running for more than a month now, and I doubt relisting is going to give us any other result than no consensus at this point. Although the deletion side has stronger argument IMO, they do not form a consensus here. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Routine capital crime with routine coverage for this kind of event. No substantial coverage since the conviction of the perpetrators in 2015. Content is limited to a one-sentence summary and a pointless quote, so we're not losing brilliant prose here. Sandstein 10:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tragic, but not especially notable. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has plenty of notable sources, Washington Post, Daily Mail. Article is notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have any citation to The Washington Post, and the tabloid Daily Mail is certainly not a reliable source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although this is a horrific tragedy for the families and friends of the two victims, it is a fairly routine drug crime that received routine news coverage, including some routine tabloid-style sensationalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per notable sources such as Washington Post. Overall coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @BabbaQ: Can you provide a link to the Washington Post coverage that you mentioned? I do not see it. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he may be referring to the Washington Times. Very different. GAB^gab 22:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Times is also a big city daily, and a RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of a stretch. I'd not trust the WT for _anything_ even moderately touching on politics or religion and this is getting close to politics. Hobit (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this case attracted a degree of national coverage because of torture of victims and because of the highly political statement made by murder at trial. [1], [2]. Plus, notoriety was such that the case continues to attract regional press attention, years afterwards [3], [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Those two instances of coverage "years afterwards" that you linked to are pretty much textbook examples of passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notoriety is notability, sadly. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Backed out original WP:NAC per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_November_20#Murders_of_Jourdan_Bobbish_and_Jacob_Kudla -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this murder 1.) at first drew intense regional attention as a region-wide search for missing teenagers (who, it turned out< had gone to buy drugs. 2.) Drew international attention after the bodies were eventually discovered in a vacant lot (headline ""Empty city hides the dead," ) at a time when Detroit was the emblematic city in a period of media focus on the dacay of American inner cities, 3.) drew attention again as the unusually brutal attention of the killings was revealed, and 4.) drew national attention due to the grandstanding of one of the the murderers at sentencing. I have added a few of the many sources available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Modest WP:HEYMANN] I did a little expand, source, clarifying the 4 aspects of this murder that mark this as a routine crime and demonstrating that it garnered more than routine coverage (there was national and even international coverage). E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragic for the families involved, but really not notable. And the prose is truly awful. KJP1 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN, Kudos to Neptune's Trident, doing some heavy lifting to source the article. I suggest that users who weighed in as little as an hour ago need to reconsider in light of sourcing now on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decent rewrite, but I'm still unconvinced. No aspect of the case (brutal murder, widespread search, etc.) is particularly unusual or important as far as murders go. There's no indication that this case had any importance for e.g. police or judicial practice, or that it received coverage after the sentencing. I also don't get what the odd quote of the perpetrator is supposed to convey. Yes, there is quite a bit of media coverage, but that is to be expected in grisly murders, hence NOTNEWS. Sandstein 18:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not an IDONTLIKEIT argument? Our general criteria is sources. We have them. Over a sustained time and over as wide a geographic area as is possible. WP:EVENT is met in spades. Hobit (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, and per the lack of secondary sources. There seems to have long been an impression among Wikipedia editors that news reports are secondary sources for the events that they describe. They are considered to be primary sources by historians and everyone else outside of Wikipedia, so that is how we should consider them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nonsense.~~ We routinely and properly write and keep articles about significant, notable events as they occur. Based on reliable sources, of course. This is not a valid argument for deletion. Presumably this IP is merely unfamiliar with WP standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least "this IP" is familar enough with WP standards to know that calling other editors' reasoned arguments "nonsense" is not the way that deletion discussions should be conducted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal would eliminate about 80% of Wikipedia, making things like the NYT, Washington Post and the like not sources we could use. That's a really really big change you are proposing and moves quite far into IAR. Hobit (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't make them into sources we could not use. There are many occasions when such publications publish articles that can be regarded as secondary sources, such as articles reviewing a situation or profiling a person, but day-to-day news reports are primary sources for the events that they describe, and have always been treated as such by historians. Do you want to deprecate WP:NOT#NEWS? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:N, so the question is of meeting WP:EVENT and the associated WP:NOTNEWS. Given that we've got sustained coverage on an international level, I've got to say yes it does. Hobit (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentions in sources over a period of time I believe satisfies project notability rules. ValarianB (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the amount and longevity of the coverage. Hobit's comments are spot-on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources, widespread impact and wide coverage are all present. I'm confused even after reading the above as to how this does not qualify as notable. The phrase, "routine capital crime," did give me my Moment of Surrealism for the day, though, so thank you for that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been reported in numerous media outlets and it's obviously not a "routine capital crime", considering all the factors involved. And, yes it was not the Washington Post it's the Washington Times (you could check that in two seconds) however it's not like people are quoting some random blog, reputable sources have been added.Frtlvgo (talk) 14:23, 6 December 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.