Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Georgia Williams

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. The actual policy-based arguments weigh as delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Georgia Williams[edit]

Disappearance of Georgia Williams (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)

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
  • Keep. The high-profile disappearance and apparent murder of the pretty teenage daughter of a policeman. This will clearly receive a great deal more coverage in the national media. Jim Michael (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In case you do not want to read my long explanation below, this basically comes down to what you said about the coverage. There will be a "great deal more coverage" but there isn't at the present time. Also, the incident will have to have some time of lasting effect on people, in more than just the community where it took place. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Jim, that is the criteria for a tabloid media or Sky News frenzy not an encyclopedia entry. Keri (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For Wikipedia EVENTS, the “rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred).” This is receiving national and now international coverage. However, we need to keep in mind that “routine kinds of news events” (e.g. murder), “whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.” Here, the question is if this case will have a WP:LASTING effect. In this case, there would need to be something unusual about the case. For instance, kidnapping usually does not qualify for an article; however, events like this kidnapping qualify as there are many variables that make it unusual (rape, fathering of the child, captivity for so long, etc.) that will make it something for people to talk about for decades. In the case of Georgia Williams, it is possible that the story gets to that level, but it has not received enough attention at the moment to have a lasting effect outside of the community in which it took place. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons directly above.--85.210.99.191 (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A sad story, but not at present an unusual one or something that will cause it to stand out from others in history. In addition, an arrest has been made and the matter is sub judice, so any information about the circumstances of her disappearance etc will be of the nature of speculation and there are no truly reliable sources. Aside from any very controlled information which the police choose to release journalists are relying on information from sources who do not have direct knowledge, are witnesses who may have been advised to withhold what they know, or even those who have reason to spread disinformation. The best time to consider creating such articles is after the trial, when the lasting significance if any is clear and the facts have been tested in court. --AJHingston (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we don't usually wait until a trial has ended before an article about a crime/death is created. Jim Michael (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we probably should! It is very difficult to keep such articles to the disappearance and search themselves, and there are good reasons why the facts of what actually happened usually only emerge at trial. A decent interval also makes it easier to judge lasting significance and notability. --AJHingston (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not of sufficient general or permanent interest. that the individual is "pretty:, "teen-aged" and "the daughter of a policeman" is irrelevant to any encyclopedic interest. I am rather reluctant to delete under NOT NEWS if there is something intrinsically exceptional, or major international coverage, but I nonetheless cannot justify this article. FWIW, I do not think that the UK "sub judice" rule has any relevance to us. If we did know the name, we could include it (as the article does currently include it in the footnotes) if the article were otherwise justified. Our BLP policy is what applies, and our equally important policy of NOT CENSORED. (I recognize that editors in the UK may not want to add such information, but that should indluence no one elsewhere.) DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sub judice rule does restrict reporting in the UK, though, and accordingly what is reliably known. Rumours may be rife, but those in a position to contradict them will usually be unwilling or unable to contradict them. We have bitter experience in recent times of how speculation in such cases can run riot and even supposedly RS can convey information which turns out to be completely wrong. That problem is not confined to Britain. Wikipedians need to learn from that, and BLP needs to be rigorously enforced. This has nothing to do with censorship, it has to do with avoiding inaccurate and misleading information appearing in WP. --AJHingston (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication yet that this single event will have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance. Per the notability guideline: most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. Keri (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per all the reasons given above. Nothing to suggest that this sad incident will have any enduring significance or any enduring significant coverage, which is what is required. The current media interest, which will no doubt continue with any subsequent developments or criminal trial, is mid-level at best; and even if it were greater we'd still fail the significance point – WP is not a newspaper or a place to round up crime and courts news reports. There are far too many of these kind of entries on WP, misleadingly justified by the claim that there are "lots of [media] sources". Let's not add another one. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, a very sad case, but I doubt it will have enduring significance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Paul MacDermott. See also Missing white woman syndrome. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Murder of Georgia Williams and Keep. This has been a high profile casein the British news. A body has now been found, and a person arrested. Whether we will keep this in the long term is perhaps a different question. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the delete comments have explained why news reports of crimes or incidents such as this are not, by WP policy or guidelines, enough on their own to justify retention of such entries, without any additional factors that would create enduring significance. Are there any policy-based reasons for retention, or policy-based rebuttals of those fairly comprehensive delete comments? As noted, it's not even that high-profile in the media, and even if it were, is that enough for an encyclopedia? And I don't see why or how the discovery of a body or the fact that a trial may follow shifts the nature of the discussion. Nor do I understand the suggestion that it is supposedly notable now, so we should keep the page for now, but that it might not be in the long term and that we may wish to delete it later. Isn't that back to front? Something acquires notability, it doesn't lose it. N-HH talk/edits 22:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"it's not even that high-profile in the media"!! Come again? Have you actually been looking at the media in Britain recently? Most murders are not particularly high-profile. This one certainly is, and that's the reason for keep opinions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes, I have. It is getting coverage, like lots of other tragic events and crimes, but it is not splashed all over the front pages every day. It is occasional inside page/down the running order stuff in serious media – as I said, mid-level. That aside, there is the issue of what such coverage, however wide, means for encyclopedic notability. As referred to already, from WP:EVENT:
  • "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)"
  • "News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article"
  • "Routine kinds of news events .. including most crimes, accidents, deaths .. – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" etc etc –
Previous AFD debates are also pretty clear on this. N-HH talk/edits 10:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping this article. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See observation in response to post above, and detailed and reasoned points made in all Delete posts. Will AFDs ever be free from people simply posting pithy "Keep .. high profile", or "Keep .. meets GNG" comments? N-HH talk/edits 07:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will AfDs ever be free from nominators simply using the pithy "NOTNEWS"? as a reason for deletion of an article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent Delete comments have more than elaborated on the detail of the arguments at stake, as well as highlighting the paucity of reasoning being offered in favour of Keep. As for my specific question here, the answer is, as evidenced by the main comment immediately below this one, "Clearly not". N-HH talk/edits 19:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the the nominator couldn't be bothered to come up with a better reason. As ever, it is easier to destroy than to create. You may not agree with the reasoning behind the keeps, others of us clearly do. We feel it is common sense to keep an article on an event with such a high national profile. This is not a minor story in a local newspaper. It is also incumbent on those trotting out WP:NOTNEWS to actually read what that section says: it doesn't say what you clearly think it says. This event does not fall into the categories covered, since it is neither a first-hand news report nor "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Nothing else is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. To quote WP:NNEWS: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." In what way does this event not meet that criterion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but none of the "Keeps" have, until now, even tried to explain anything at all. And even now you are talking in the first part of your comment about what you "feel" is "common sense". As for policy and guidelines, which you've now also addressed, the "Delete" reasoning has not just been based on the WP:NOTNEWS section of policy but also on guidelines such as WP:Notability and, more specifically, WP:EVENT. As for NOTNEWS, I know exactly what it says thanks, and you've rather significantly elided the "For example" that comes ahead of the categories cited, which presumably were chosen as being simply the most obvious things that it means when, before that, it explicitly says that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". Your assertion that "nothing else is covered" outside of the categories named is just plain wrong.
As for WP:EVENT, I quoted the points it makes above – which very explicitly exclude from notability deaths and crimes based solely on news coverage. Even the main notability page qualifies the basic definition in GNG by saying that, "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage ... Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage". And, in response to your final point, what "widespread" impact is it being suggested that this tragic event has actually had? Nor do we have "diverse sources" – we have some contemporaneous news reports in the UK media, mostly sourced in turn from PA most likely, which is not, as noted, the "significant coverage" required by GNG. N-HH talk/edits 16:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference to "the rules" in your edit summary illustrates perfectly how so many editors misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Which "rules" would these be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Death of Georgia Williams (since murder has not yet been proven in court) and Keep. Very high-profile case extensively covered and still being covered in the British national media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The rename should be "Death of (name)" as 'murder' goes against policy guidelines and death has been confirmed, so disappearance no longer qualifies. Seems to meet GNG; just needs a lot more work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it. If the editors who are in favour of retaining this article could improve the article, we may be able to show its notability - similar to Murder of Joanna Yeates and Murder of Sian O'Callaghan. Jim Michael (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 02:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - At least until we see if this type of event has any lasting impact. If it does, then we should rename it Death of Georgia Williams. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 02:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTTRUECRIME, WP:NOTNEWS. Kidnappings and murders are sensational events covered extensively in the press. Only when they demonstrate lasting historic importance are they encyclopedic topics, however. My condolences to the victim's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete people disappear all the time, I don't see it meeting WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The vast majority of disappearances and deaths do not receive national media coverage. This is a high-profile disappearance and death, which appears to have been a kidnapping and murder. 188.28.139.156 (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — 188.28.139.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as before. Tragic but fails WP:NOTNEWS. Charges have been brought and the media has moved on to other stories. No objections to the userfy option if he wants to do that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The media are limited about what they say about the case and the suspect, who has been remanded in custody, until the trial begins. The coverage will continue then. I don't know how to userfy - I guess this means moving the article to my user page. Jim Michael (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it. The page would be at something like User:Jim Michael/Disappearance of Georgia Williams. I'm not sure whether you can move it now or if you have to wait for the debate to be over then ask for it to be restored to your userspace. Alternatively you could click on edit, copy the latest version of the page then create a new page in your userspace. Perhaps someone else can offer advice here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:32, 15 June 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/Disappearance_of_Georgia_Williams&oldid=1136112559"