Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths

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 and provisionally rename to Bradford murders. In terms of keep vs delete, there seems to be a consensus that the subject and/or the events in which he is involved are notable enough for coverage in Wikipedia. However, there also seems to a consensus in favour of renaming the article and reworking it to cover the eventts rather than their alleged perpetrator. Those arguing for this make strong atrguments which I feel are backed up by our policy on biographies of living persons. In addition, looking at this from a long-term perspective that an encyclopaedia should take, should the subject be acquitted by a jury, it would seem a gross BLP violation to keep an article on him that so intricately deals with the events he is accused of being a part of, thus I am closing this discussion as keep but will immediately move it to the title Bradford murders from where it can be moved to another title if consensus determines it to be appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Griffiths

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

As somebody who has just been charged with three murders, he is not notable at present, though he may become so. See WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of his unusual self-christened nickname, I specifically googled "crossbow cannibal wiki" to find an article on the guy, hoping to read more without sifting through media filler. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sad to have to go trough theese kind of Afd processes everytime when trying to start a new crime article. Even tough itd sbout s notable case like this. World attention. attention from major news sources. etc etc. I wasnt the one who started this article so i dont know why i got the Afd notice.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he isnt notable then no other serial killer suspect of serial killer is notable. Or do we have some American bias here?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i was going to do this page myself, but my connection was so shit I couldn't operate wikipedia properly today. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of ongoing news coverage, plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Peter Tobin's case caused a police visit to a UK editor. We are not trained journalists, and someone will make a libellous mistake. Wait until after the trial. This is far more important than simple keep/delete. If the defence claims the trial has been prejudiced and it is cancelled, someone else will have to appear in front of the judge and we're the people most likely to make a mistake. A high level Wiki policy statement is needed on cases which are subjudice. Renaming is fine in principle but won't stop someone adding back the carefully removed details. JRPG (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, what do we have to do with prejudice of the trial? --Cyclopiatalk 22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything! English law is very harsh on newspapers who state allegations or speculative assumptions as facts ahead of a trial. Wikipedia doesn't have a team of lawyers checking each article. Every line will have the crucial word "allegedly" and no speculation on whether he's a cannibal. Miss it out and Wikipedia, not the newspaper is committing an offence. If he's found guily you can legally say what you like. It's not subjudice, his reputation is worthless and he can't sue.JRPG (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. But we're not a newspaper and WP is not based in the UK. That said, I am curious to know more about the Tobin case and the UK editor. Do you have a relevant link? --Cyclopiatalk 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit of research; found nothing about a visit to a UK editor, but understood the point better. There is this impossibly long archived discussion from 2008 on the subject -any update on this subject? It seems that even BBC doesn't take information from its archives down, so I'd lean towards keeping information (and if some juror looks on the Internet during the trial, it's the juror's fault, not ours) --Cyclopiatalk 11:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth paragraph, response by Alison W Twenty years ago, the rules were total press silence after charges and 3-6 months before the trial to give people time to forget. The internet has made that more difficult and I've seen reports of juries researching cases. Tobin was very difficult as he had a very highly publicised trial, followed by another a long time later. The key point though is to avoid speculative references to cannibalism, or any other assumption of guilt before the end of the trial. We don't want to become notable! Regards JRPG (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no trace of UK police visiting a UK editor in the paragraph you quote. That said, it seems we have no policy about the subjudice -also because if we comply to UK restrictions on content, why shouldn't we comply with, say, China or Iran restrictions on content? Again: WP is not based in the UK, so I see no legal reasons to comply with it. If there are possible liabilities for UK editors, we can advice editing of the article and talk page to be avoided by UK editors. --Cyclopiatalk 13:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the 14th line.
In this case, I was approached by an Police Officer, acting on behalf of the court, that there were very strong reasons why this article (and its caches, which were being dealt with separately) should not be available for the duration of the case. After making confirmatory checks that the officer was 'real' and acting correctly (both true) I considered his request and, specifically, that it was strongly felt that should this article remain in place then the court action could be thrown out. Now, as other media coverage has noted, there is a very serious charge against this individual and given that there is a lot of history about him in this article I concurred that in the best interests of justice it would be very much preferable if the content was removed temporarily.
Note also the final sentence in [this video] warning not to publish material which would prejudice the trial.JRPG (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, I've seen -I was reading the wrong paragraph. I'd say it is a very good reason for UK editors not to get involved, but not a reason to remove the content. --Cyclopiatalk 14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I would be happy if the article was edit protected until completion of the trial. I won't touch with a barge pole.JRPG (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Thanks. :) --Cyclopiatalk 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, maybe are we too much paranoid? I mean, BBC keeps this online. Why BBC can, and we can't? --Cyclopiatalk 20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I don't think Griffiths himself is notable, but the case itself could be, so perhaps we need to rename it something like Bradford serial murders. A point here though, I'm not certain it's not actually a serial murder case. Wouldn't there have needed to have been five murders for it to be a serial murder case? That's only going to be so if the earlier cases from 1992 and the early 2000s are linked to this one. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happen to have recently discovered that the definition of serial killer used on Wikipedia is at least three murders for psychological gratification, over a period of more than 30 days, with a cooling off period in between them. However we should be using whatever the media is using. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If guilty, he probably passes that definition. He has been charged with three murders and one of the women has been missing for a substantial time. As for the reason why, we're still guessing until any trial. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this concept but we may still need to be careful. The defence may say they weren't all committed by the same person, we don't know. JRPG (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion no merge is necessary..considering that this Stephen Griffiths has got all the attention on him not the murders itself. Its different in other cases. But here Stephen as a person is what is of interest of the media actually.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree, but our policies differ. In theory I could argue too for an IAR simple keep, but renaming and creating an article about the event seems the best option. --Cyclopiatalk 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would never have been even a issue had this been about an american. which is totally bias. Sad that wikipedia still is america friendly when it comes to crime articles,more than rest of the world.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would never have becomed any discussion about merge or rename had this been about an american serial killer. Totally biased.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Brit. I want it renamed. He hasn't been convicted; he hasn't even been tried for goodness sake. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am an Italian. Living in the UK. Agree with renaming. Your conspiracy theories are nonsense. --Cyclopiatalk 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - I've been working on this on Wikinews and was surprised it took some time for a WP page to appear. The media coverage has been global (though I confess I've mainly stuck with British sources) and, realistically, serial killer cases are usually notable. However, I also agree that we can't name the page after Griffiths - especially without even a conviction. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename, as I commented on the article's talk page there are enough noteworthy aspects, and enough media reports, to make some article. I've no objections to the rename option, but per ÅlandÖland, in this particular case at this time, I'm not convinced it's the best option. As far as I'm aware, these three alleged murders are only linked through the investigation and charges against this one person. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless he turns out to be a random fantastist with matching DNA, this article is likely to remain of note  BRIANTIST  (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources like this may prejudice his trial. Although this article does not say he killed them, it is strengthening the link between him and the women. The justice system of this country is based on 'innocent until proven guilty',and the jury will be selected from the general public, who are easily swayed by the media, and a wikipedia page adds sustenance to the prosecution's case, before we even know what the evidence is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycarrie84 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He currently has a really high profile in the Media and thus notability. Also he has become a famous serial killer IJA (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename - on principle, we normally don't name articles about serial killers, particularly when they are current events. We normally name the article after the victim (ie: murder of, killing of, etc), or give it an appropriate title. However, if this series of cases prove both related and significant (they still have not found two of the three bodies), then it should be renamed. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still say keep here. This article subject has becomed ntoable in his own right. To delete seems meaningless.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the trial is ongoing. At the moment he would only be notable by WP:ONEEVENT. Were he to be found innocent, then he's not notable. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form (possibly renamed). I think that other articles tend to entitled as about the murder, rather than its perpetrator (in this case alleged perpetrator). However, multiple murders are particularly notorious. This article will no doubt develop as the trial process develops. At present, he is only an alleged murderer, so that we must be careful. There are severe restrictions on what UK newspapers are allowed to print about a criminal case before there is a conviction. WP should be as circumspect. UK editors are probably subject to the same restrcitions as the press. These are designed to ensure that a person can get a fair trial. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename or delete WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, ... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Currently, as someone who has merely been accused, a standalone article under the name of a living person is unacceptable. Active Banana (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename as 2009-2010 Bradford serial killings or similar; focus on the details of the killings, and keep mentions of Griffiths to a single section (so that it can easily be updated as events progress, without the risk of inadvertently leaving harmful information lying unnoticed elsewhere in the article). I presume the police have explicitly linked the killings - though would we need that to justify us treating them jointly, as they have obviously implicitly linked them by charging one man with the three? Maybe redirect from Crossbow Cannibal and establish a Stephen/Steven/Steve Griffiths disambiguation page as there are now quite a few of them. Barnabypage (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and no need to rename. Clearly has sufficient coverage to be notable and I would argue that renaming to the "event" is more of a BLP issue than making it crystal clear in the article that he is a suspect rather than convicted. If it is renamed, the article will have to be completely rewritten to focus on the murders rather than the suspect. - ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - see handling of Steve Wright (serial killer) and Ipswich serial murders. It would be easy enough to spin off a section on Griffiths-the-person (or indeed any other suspect) into a separate article if he is convicted, while keeping the main treatment of the crimes and investigation in the original article. Barnabypage (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is precisely the sort of article that the policy on biographies of living people should be concerned about, as it repeats unproven allegations about a living person which are obviously potentially harmful to that person. We've been sidetracked this year by a handful of disruptive editors (included some admins and at least one steward) into a moral panic about poorly sourced articles saying "Joe Bloggs is a footballer playing for Anytown United" rather than concentrating on the cases, such as this one, that have the potential to cause real, serious, harm. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we widen this to include Anthony Sowell? Seem to be a similar debate, and the hoops I'm being made to jump through to edit are getting smaller all the time. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment was made by a user who moved Sowell's page so much it got, at my request, move protected. (The first move was to the highly inappropriate and lurid "Ohio House of Horrors.") He has been asked more than once to go to Sowell's talk page and get consensus, so this comment constitutes inappropriate canvassing. Şłџğģő 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have gone with the Imperial Avenue Murders initially, except there was no mention of Imperial Avenue in the article. If House of Horror is so inappropriate and lurid, it's strange that this disambiguation page refers to Rose and Fred West. No-one deemed it necessary to delete that although SluggoOne is about to. SO is trying to suggest that I am unreasonable. The evidence is there for people to make up their own minds. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough plus he has been in media enough for own notability.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and rework to be about the case, not the accused. Fences&Windows 19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Bradford murders or similar, the support is overwhelming, who is going to go ahead and do it? Ggoere (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yet i cant see a clear pattern that most people wont it to be renamed....The discussion should be closed as no consensus. and be kept under its current name.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the decision on whether or not to rename it should be decided in a move debate. Although mergers, redirects and moves are often proposed in a deletion debate, ultimately a deletion debate exists to decide whether or not to delete the article completely. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing I do NOT see here is a consensus to keep under the current name! Active Banana (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither no consensus to change the name.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no policy based reasoning that suggests anything close to the BLP demand that it cannot remain under the current name - that means determining a consensus between "delete" or finding a consensus for different focus and name for the article. Active Banana (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (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/Stephen_Griffiths&oldid=1136107894"