Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl Lady

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) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Lady[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:VICTIM: "the... victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if... the following applies: The victim... consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role". This does not apply here; the victim is not notable for anything other than being a victim, and since she was rich and the case was not ordinary, it received some media coverage. Wikipedia is not a database of murder victims; perhaps there's a wikia where this could be moved, but here it fails the notability threshold. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment The case has received nationwide attention and coverage, establishing notability. There is still more work that needs to be done with additional information, as the trial for the person of interest has yet taken place. Also, she wasn't necessarily a murder victim, as she drowned after falling from a height. The subject on trial is only accused to lying to police, not for causing the person's death. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), most of the sources originate from reliable sources, such as ABC,also establishing notability. I wrote the article because the case has remained popular in regards to those familiar with unidentified persons cases and there was a significant amount of information available.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 15:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no in-depth or nationwide coverage in reliable sources. Other than a blog, all of the sources are local in or near Cincinatti, Ohio. Agree with nom that the article fails WP:VICTIM. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies as does WP:SINGLEEVENT. The article is about a local investigation and not suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 02:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few other sources, some from other spots on the web and including three journals. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 03:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I would vote for keep. Just because it happened in "flyover country", does not mean it should be deleted. Cincinatti is a major city. The deletionist comments show the institutional bias of Wikipedians towards New York City and Los Angeles - if it didn't happen in NYC or LA, it must be non-notable. Paul Austin (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear case of not failing WP:GNG. Also the the nominator is incorrect that Wikipedia is not a databse for murders when in fact Wiki has thousands of Crime related articles. Should we cover all crimes, no. Should we cover those who are notable like this one, yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by Gourami Watcher and BabbaQ and Paul Austin.ShulMaven (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 9 December 2014 (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.