Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Birch

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 - no sustainable notability. - Philippe | Talk 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Birch[edit]

Julie Birch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I think this directly fails WP:BLP1E as there was nothing notable or extraordinary about the case of this particular woman killing her husband. I PRODed, creator removed it with note one where sources could be found, including one on line. While I don't know anything about the Toronto Sun as an RS, this article has phrasing that leaves me wondering about author professionalism specifically: Paul, I should point out, was one heck of an embalmer and One day, while working over a body, she gave Paul the high sign. He caught it, cherished it, and couldn't wait to introduce his cute colleague to more lively pursuits. The two commenced a prolonged affair. Regardless of source quality, I'm submitting this here for discussion especially reL: WP:BLP1E. Travellingcari (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree that the Toronto Sun article is of poor quality but Travellingcari had previously argued that the six references given in the original article were somehow suspect (as they pre-dated the internet) so I added the Toronto Sun to reassure her. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and I appreciate that, but that doesn't address my issue of BLP1E, she's notable for nothing else and other than the victim being 'one heck of an embalmer' there's nothing special about this case. If it were notable, sources would be easier to find because it would have been covered in greater depth. I know it's a stretch but these are two who come to mind first: Amy Fisher and Lorena Bobbit were pre-internet but there are sources online. Lisa Steinberg was murdered around the time Julie Birch killed, also pre-internet and there are sources online. Why? Because it was deemed worthy of continuing coverage, possibly due to notability. I still see no notability for this case. I realise you're the creator and therefore somewhat partial to it existing otherwise you wouldn't have created it, but I think my rationale still stands. Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are at least 66 pages in Category:English murderers. I don't see that this one is any different from the others. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Doesn't mean they should, which doesn't make it a reason for keeping this one. How does otherstuff make this one not a BLP1E issue? Travellingcari (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I remember this murder well. I read about it in the Daily Mirror at the time and it was covered in most of the nationals. Excuse My Dust (talk) 10:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then how is it that none of the nationals are cited in it, only local papers? --Calton | Talk 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I see nothing notable about this crime. It clearly fails WP:BLP1E.BWH76 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. seems to be a perfectly ordinary murder. In the absence of a standard of notability for crimes, I prefer that such articles demonstrate some sort of importance or relevance beyond just being in the news. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally think that BLP1E is abused and should be revoked, this meets our biographical guidelines for inclusion just fine. RFerreira (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than that sensationalistic Toronto article, I notice that all of the other refs are local papers, meaning it didn't seem to attract national attention in its own country; but regardless, yeah, just another garden-variety murder. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:NOTNEWS, local coverage only, another random murder. Note that BLP1E does not by itself necessitate deletion since that is about what we focus attention on if we choose to have an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Covered by WP:NOT#NEWS. She has done nothing of lasting notability, and there is little evidence even of immediate notability.--Dycedarg ж 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep p 1 seems notable enough. — BQZip01 — talk 03:09, 26 February 2008 (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/Julie_Birch&oldid=1089096520"