Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sian O'Callaghan

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 withdraw/cllose per WP:SNOWBALL. We can revisit this in a couple of weeks and perhaps make a more informed decision with hindsight. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sian O'Callaghan[edit]

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

Another disappearance and death of another woman in her early twenties as she made her way home from a nightclub. Tragic as this case is, it doesn't appear to be notable just now, and fails WP:NOTNEWS. There is a possibility that it could be linked to another case from some years ago, but nothing is confirmed at present. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in Wikipedia terms. THere are all sorts of reasons why Wikipedia should not include these cases especially when the body has only just been identified and the matter has not gone to trial. Speculation about links with other offences are especially undesirable. Any notability will emerge in due time if at all. AJHingston (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The same as with the Afd on the Murder of Joanna Yeates its all pure speculations on how this story will work out when it comes to future notability. But for now it is notable. Almost 4 million hits on Google for her name and case. This is actually a bigger story then the Joanna Yeates case.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This story trumps the Libyan uprising in the news, this is the main news on Sky News and BBC News. Also the Melanie Hall connection gives yet another dimension to this story. Its an obvious keep for me. I find it sad that every single article about a murder or disappearance has to go trough an Afd process, and it often becomes a heated discussion and twisted arguments and guidelines in both keep and delte directions. We cant see into the future none of us.. but for now this story IS per fact the biggest story in UK media. That is not pure speculations... --BabbaQ (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. The Joanna Yeates case was more notable for several reasons, all of which I discussed in the afd for that article, and I believe it had met the notability guidelines by the time it was created, which was why I supported keeping it. This one, however, has few things to meet the requirements, and we shouldn't have an article about a subject just in case it might become notable one day. Speculating about links to other cases is also not helpful for all sorts of reasons, both on and off wiki. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see the speculation-train has left the station once again... its only as often with this kind of articles speculations about its future notability and personal opinions about the articles current notability. Its better to keep and have the article re-evaluated in a few months time when we know more for certain if it will have a long lasting notability. But for now its quite clear that it has notability. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Note At this time the article was moved from Death of Sian O'Callaghan to Murder of Sian O'Callaghan. TheRetroGuy (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Same old, same old. These AfDs always prove futile. In the UK, this story has replaced Libyan uprising and Japan's disasters as the main story. This has been the case for at least a week. NOTNEWS I hear you ask? Well there are other factors that make this crime stand out. We have a person who has taken police to the victims burial site, and also that of another victim, as yet unidentified. This is proving to be even more serious and unusual than first thought. The article may yet need to be renamed as the full extent of the crime is realised, and other victims named. Certainly no reason to delete. It'll probably get re-created by someone else pretty soon, if deleted, anyway. People expect such big stories to be documented, you see. Orphan Wiki 23:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Allow article to establish grounds. Such deletion methods just hinder the development of better articles with conclusive citations by putting contributers off from making any effort to maintain articles. There are far more uncited, unreferenced, not-notable articles on wikipedia (particularly under pseudo science) but public events draw AFD's far more regularly. Koncorde (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the news and doesn't need an article on every single missing or dead white woman. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not news?. Look around Wikipedia is filled with news. The Libyan uprising is news, the death of Elizabeth Taylor is news. Wikipedia is built on news. And Wikipedia is indeed not in need of having an article on eveyr single missing white woman, that is why only the most notable and published cases should be included such as this one and the Joanna yeates story etc etc. Just check out how many people who gets murdered or disappears each year in the UK and you will see that only a select few has articles in Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a police search, using a mechanical digger, for a second body believed to be of someone who went missing and was murdered years ago. The search was instigated shortly after the arrest of the suspect for the kidnap and murder of O'Callaghan. This isn't merely media coverage of one murder. Jim Michael (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The WP:BREAKING section of WP:EVENT recommends waiting to create articles such as these, but it also recommends waiting to nominate them for deletion due to the potential for further developments. The amount of coverage does seem to go beyond what I would consider "routine news coverage". Location (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons already stated. We have about 900 homicides in the UK, which puts the comment about a small number of the murders gaining wide publicity into context. Philip Cross (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. "Breaking news" articles should ideally not be created until some notability is established. But if one is created, there seems little point in deleting it either, until it becomes clear it is not notable. We've got content here that people have put work into, and I'd say we really don't know which way the notability thing is going to turn out - so I see no need to delete it until we're in a better position to decide on long-term notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, I'm going to close this debate as a WP:SNOWBALL because I can see the way this debate is probably going to play itself out. Most people will argue that it's breaking news, we should keep it to see how the story develops, it's the top news story in the UK, etc, etc, etc. if the press coverage tails off and it turns out not to be linked to other murders, it can be renominated in a couple of weeks. I should remind everyone that we're not a news aggregating service and articles like this should only appear when there's something notable about which to write. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2011 (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.