Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Brady

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 merge to Moors murders. NW (Talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Brady[edit]

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

Ian Brady is notable only for the Moors murders, and with the recent development of that article there's no longer any need for this one. Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following article as well, under the same rationale:

Merge with redirects to Moors Murders: As Malleus points out, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley are notable for the murders and the coverage of them in reliable sources relates to said murders. Now the main article is well developed, it makes sense to merge anything salvageable into the article on the murders and make the other two redirects. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct (redirect to remain - not be deleted obviously) Per nominator, WP:BLP1E, precedent on these things (e.g. Ian Huntley), and the substantial work at the main article. Pedro : Chat 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger seems reasonable: "Hindley wakes and says: 'Wherever he has gone, I have gone' ", and that is to Moors Murders. --Milowent (talk) 04:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all above. Brady, Hindley and the Moors murders are indissociable, and should be merged. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both were regularly in the news for decades after their crimes, and the saga of whether or not Hindley should be released needs to be covered. A merge is possible, but this would leave a very large article if it was done without losing a lot of content, so separate articles seems the best approach. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC) In addition, Hindley has been the subject of significant works that deal with her as an individual: [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The saga of Hindley's campaigns for release are already covered better in the Moors murders article. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's a lot of duplication between the articles. If the Moors Murders article did get too big in the future it could always be split up again. Richerman (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Myra Hindley, undecided about Ian Brady - Moors murders is certainly a great article, but I think some of the material there more properly belongs in a biography of Ian Brady or Myra Hindley. From a cursory look, there is material in both of the biographical articles that is not (and in my view should not be) included in Moors murders. It would be inapproriate for Moors murders to include a discussion of Hindley's iconic mugshot or of the painting by Marcus Harvey, or of Brady's book The Gates of Janus, but they can be discussed in an encyclopedic article about the individuals. On that basis, I think there is room for all three articles, with appropriate cross-references. There is some force in the WP:BLP1E argument for Ian Brady, but Myra Hindley has been dead for nearly 7 years. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difficulty, I think, is that it's not possible to understand the motivations behind the murders without understanding Brady and Hindley's backgrounds, so a great deal of biographical information has to be included in the article on the murders, perhaps particularly in Hindley's case. The question I'd be asking myself is this: "Would anyone looking up an article on Myra Hindley be expecting to see a regular biography or an account of her role in the murders?" The only other thing she's famous for is the length of her incarceration and the high-profile attempts to have her released, both of which are also related to the murders. There's relatively very little to say about Brady unrelated to the murders anyway, as unlike Hindley he's never campaigned for his freedom and reportedly just wants to be allowed to die. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that there are difficulties here. My perfect solution would be, I think, a brief summmary of both of their backgrounds in Moors murders (with cross reference to the biographical articles), then a full description of the crimes, trial and incarceration, and finally a brief exposition of the peripheral biographical details. Simultaneously, the biographical articles would have a more detailed explanation of their background, a brief summary of their crimes (with cross reference to the main article) and then more detail on their later life and wider influence. There would necessarily be overlap between the articles, but they would put emphasis in different places, in accordance with summary style (although this is not stricly a "main topic/subarticle" situation). My principal concern with merging them all together is that important details could be lost. Anyway, enough from me. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly notable individual who is continuously featured in the news in extraordinary fashion. Tom Green (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When was she last in the news? What was she extraordinary for? Besides, nobody is suggesting that the material is lost, simply moved to somewhere more appropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing that it's deleted, that's the purpose of AFD. If you want to propose a move or a merge, this isn't the place.--Michig (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I said in the nomination. I'm proposing that the article is deleted, not the material, as the topic is already better covered here. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Moors Murders article doesn't contain all of the detail from the Myra Hindley article, nor should it as much of it is better covered in a separate article. If the Hindley article is deleted, this information will be lost. In response to your question about when Hindley was last in the news, the answer is this month, and Brady less than a week ago [5].--Michig (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it would be a crying shame to lose those ever so useful and relevant trivia sections. Not. And "this month" hardly qualifies as "continuously featured in the news", not in my book at least. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For more evidence that Myra Hindley is constantly in the news see her mention in this recent article [6]. On a personal level I feel that she has cultural relevancy as an iconic British serial killer. --82.35.224.205 (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm mystified by the allegation that "If the Hindley article is deleted, this information will be lost". If there is good quality (and I'm agreeing with Malleus here about the trvia) material then it can, and will, be moved and preserved in Moor Murders. There is, after all, no such thing as delete and merge. Pedro : Chat 14:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article(s) have been nominated for deletion, not merging. The Marcus Harvey painting and the controversy surrounding it belongs in an article about Myra Hindley, and is currently not mentioned in Moors Murders. If, as proposed, this article is deleted, how will that then get merged into the article that's left? If the nom is proposing that the content is not deleted but merged somewhere else (which wouldn't even delete the article as it would simply be redirected), why on earth is this at AFD? A merge discussion before merging would have been a better approach.--Michig (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't have a popular venue for "Merge and redirect". Yes, merges can be talked about on various talk pages. Malleus is simply centralsing a debate that would end up on many different article talk pages, and lose impetus because of it. I entirely agree with this use of "AFD" as a streamline in this instance. Pedro : Chat 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia:Articles for discussion – and it is a discussion that's needed rather than deletion here – is a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. This has allowed a wider range of opinions on the matter to be taken into account than a talk page discussion would have. Of the 60 people who watch the Moors murders article, most of the discussion on the article's talk page about the direction of the article and progress was between two editors. There wasn't much interest and I think this was a perfectly reasonable way to attract more people to the discussion. Nev1 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The painting should be described in the Marcus Harvey article, as indeed it is. What is the purpose of duplicating all of this information over at least four articles? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Moors murders per rationale in the nom. --Jza84 | Talk 18:19, 22 September 2009 (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.