Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Keeling

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 delete. By about 2:1, which is close enough to consensus for the purposes of this discussion, contributors are of the view that coverage of this murder is not significant enough for inclusion in view of the policy that we are not a newspaper.  Sandstein  11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Keeling

[edit]
Scarlett Keeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable murder, currently mis-titled (the person was certainly not notable); previously deleted 3 times. It's understandable that there was some news coverage, but there is nothing about the murder that makes it worthy of coverage in an encyclopaedia. Should be salted as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non notable, BLP issues. We should also SALT and warn the creator about re-creating. GiantSnowman 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I clicked the first sources button above and right at the top google says: "About 53,900 results (0.36 seconds)". 53k+ of hits isn't notable? There was a movie made as well as it being a big tourism issue and 'cover-up'. Governments may wish to sweep this under the carpet but I don't think we should.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a link to an essay. Not a policy nor guideline. Read over: Wikipedia:Search engine test. It isn't marked as essay, guideline, nor policy, but it does make the point on notability. The first forty pages I checked were subsantial coverage by reliable sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GHITS may be an essay, but it is widely-used as it raises valid points. If you believe she is notable, then evidence it. GiantSnowman 11:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...Neither is WP:Search engine test a policy or guideline. Hilarious that anyone would dismiss an essay as a non-guideline and offer a how-to that is only partially about notability. Hit quantities are meaningless in themselves (cf. qualities), but may indirectly indicate notability; notability isn't automatic or assumed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand why your link above to Wikipedia:Verifiability has to do with notability. WP:V deals with verifying material in the article, not how notable it is. I agree the title may need a tweak as it should be more about the incident and its effects being notable, not just the notablity of the person. Casper (cat) has less coverage, only a book written, but has survived here. I am not trying to say that 'other stuff exists' but others may wish to read the deletion discussion on that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have to verify notability, simple as. You cannot simply say "X is notable", you need to prove it. As for the kitty, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. GiantSnowman 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You keep linking essays. 'Substanial coverage in reliable sources' is guideline/policy. I have done this. There is mention of the incident in 127 books and 11 scholarly documents in the find sources links above as well as the numerous news reports.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And where is this "substantial coverage"? I cannot see it. GiantSnowman 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous news articles, 127 books, 11 scholarly documents, and one movie so far.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to investigate those book results. Not only is "127" unreliable -- you'll find that some of them were published well before the murder. Others (even some of the later ones) do not in fact mention her (e.g. this one). The search function is not reliable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Deserves a mention under rape in Crime in India or Rape in India, but not as a separate article. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Extensive coverage in practically every British newspaper (broadsheets as well as tabloids), numerous books that do mention her, some of which go into the effects the case had on the Indian tourism industry. That clearly amounts to substantial coverage, more than enough to verify the notability of the incident. There is, however, a good case to move the article to Murder of Scarlett Keeling as that is what is noteworthy, rather than the person herself. And it needs a hell of a lot of work, but if we stop deleting it, then someone may possibly get the chance to do the work on it that it needs. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The event claimed its space in front pages of some of the best national (Indian) and international newspapers which can be seen here. Moreover, I am highlighting the point that a film was made on this event, which also came into highlight. That compels me to cast a Keep vote! Though I also feel the article has been named incorrectly (it is not a biographical article)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you think your vote squares with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER? Being on every font page on earth is not the same as being encyclopedically notable. Rather than the prominence of the coverage, the content of the coverage is important: substantial coverage — in-depth biographical coverage — is the key. Otherwise, it shouldn't be a biography, but a WP:1E (compare WP:BLP1E). Your !vote, apparently not based on biographical considerations, might support an article called Murder of Scarlett Keeling, but it doesn't come close to supporting an article on the individual. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I read too fast. So where's the in-depth coverage of the 1E? If you have links to sources about the murder (not a movie about a murder in an entertainment section), that might be somewhat convincing. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mention WP:1E, and I am inclined to join that group of participants here who are primarily aiming to establish the notability of the event and not of the person, therefore WP:1E, which deals with Notability (person), is invalid in my argument. In my last post I added two links, the first link was of Google News which showed multiple newspaper coverages of the incident and then, the second link, which informed a film was made on the event. I feel, this article should be written in this structure Murder of Scarlett Keeling>> Lead (Short summary) >> Incident >> Investigation >> Criticism/Reactions >> Influences (i.e. a film was made... etc) >> See also >> References etc. Here a similar article which has followed more or less similar structure 2012 Delhi gang rape case--Tito Dutta (contact) 21:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — This is a WP:1E properly titled Murder of Scarlett Keeling. If kept, it must be moved. However, the murder appears not to have been notable according to multiple reliable sources. Note, this actually covers a Bollywood production, and Bollywood coverage is squarely below the calibre required. Any !vote based on the Anjunaa Beach piece should be steeply discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : While was voting delete citing WP:NOTNEWS, I was thinking arguments as per WP:1E may crop up. I would like to say that as per my opinion article is not acceptable under WP:1E because an event is notable only if did the event cause any noteworthy change to the ground reality to make the event notable so as to have an article in itself. For example 2012 Delhi gang rape case lead to change in amendment of criminal law of India. However, I feel a movie being made out of this incident is not a notable result of the event. Film makers may pick up any incident from daily life or incidents to make a film!! I, therefore, am also against a new title or redirect like Murder of Sacrlett Kelling, etc. By the way, I just noted that the incident is already mentioned in article Rape in India. Jethwarp (talk) 04:01, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scarlett_Keeling&oldid=1068842307"