Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlisle buried baby case

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. There is a narrow consensus that the sources provide sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle buried baby case[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Carlisle buried baby case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a lasting notable event or person per WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4, despite local news coverage. Sadly such events are not uncommon and are not more notable to WP than other (alleged or proven) crimes. Facts707 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Not sure about the claim that this is "not uncommon" or what "not more notable" is to WP. Articles are not based on other articles notability. It is still relevent today with searches that span as far away as Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and all the US National news media. There is still coverage in 2023: Oxygen: Where is Brooke Skylar Richardson Now, 48 Hours Season 33, Episode 3, Criminal podcasts, Saving Skylar: The Brooke Skylar Richardson Case. Sonia Chopra. 9781665722957. May, 11, 2022., Inside Edition. Significant national coverage is still following this case from 2022 into 2023. This list at WP [1] (Category: Murdered American Children) supports the creation of articles not in keeping with WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4 (crimes, deaths, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena):. Maineartists (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because something else has an article doesn't mean that this should. It might even mean that some of those other articles should be deleted as well. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Disregard all other articles. This is in no way "common" as described above. Simple engine search "buried baby" and there is only one trial case that comes up in an engine search: this one. I have never in all my years editing at WP ever heard this reasoning: "subject was convicted of only one crime" to justify deleting an article. Just how many crimes does a person need to commit before they are considered "notable for inclusion"? It is clearly shown that this case does not fit the criteria of item 4 and has certainly proven lasting coverage into 2023 and around the world. The definition of "random crime" is: "lacking any definite plan or prearranged order; haphazard" ie assaults, shootings, workplace violence, and robberies. You are correct: "Random crimes generally aren't notable". This was/is in no way a "random crime". BLP burned and buried. Far from "random". I will admit the sources currently citing this article need to be updated to form a more notable article which include respectable news organizations rather than the "junk news" that accompany the content now. I would be willing to scrub and rework this article to make it up to WP standards with appropriate sources. It should not be deleted. Reworked, yes. Maineartists (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not being glib. I'm actually curious. What is your definition of a "random crime"? Maineartists (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional sources linked by Maineartists above demonstrates WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. If this case received only local coverage, that would be a good reason for deletion; however, this case has received both national and international coverage. Additionally, it was profiled on TV shows such as 48 Hours, Killer Cases, Murder Masterminds and Buried with Love. All of this exceeds routine coverage and disqualifies the article from meeting WP:EVENTCRITERIA item 4. Baronet13 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per reasons provided by Baronet13 and Qwaiiplayer Jack4576 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The extent of coverage of this event, including follow-ups, clearly indicates notability. This case, no matter how "common" some editors might think such crimes are, has received sustained interest and attention from the media, from a variety of sources and at many different points in time. Most events that are documented on Wikipedia are not entirely unique. The fact that there may be other cases like this does not detract from this case's notability. The notability of one politician or actor does not detract from another's, the notability of one iteration of the FIFA World Cup does not detract from that of the previous years, etc. It is absurd to argue that this case is not notable because there have been similar cases. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2023 (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/Carlisle_buried_baby_case&oldid=1175105999"