Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laree Slack

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 as Murder of Laree Slack (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laree Slack[edit]

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

Please note: This article has been moved to Murder of Laree Slack. Wine Guy~Talk 10:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly an A7, and a bit too controversial for a prod. This is a WP:BLP1E about a girl who died in 2001 at age 12. The article was written as a word of caution regarding the cause of death. While I fully agree with the author's point, Wikipedia is not the place to express it. Delete. (see below) Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: I request that this AfD be hidden with the {{Afd-privacy}} template once closed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the page about Laree Slack so that other people might avoid the fatal mistake that Laree's parents made. I have read numerous reports about the maiming and killing of children by their parents, with the parents believing that they were carrying out the will of God. This is an ongoing problem. Wikipedia can do a little bit to solve that problem by allowing the page about Laree to remain in Wikipedia.

I have installed many hundreds of feet of large electrical cable. I know how much a 5-foot-long, 1-inch-diameter cable weighs. It totally boggles my mind that any rational person would use such a thing to strike a child even once. Using such a thing to strike a child more than 100 times could only be done by a person who truly believes that the child is supernaturally protected from death as a result of parental corporal punishment. People should be warned that this is not true.

Please allow the page about Laree to remain in Wikipedia. Thank you for considering this request. MementoLaree (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what Wikipedia is not, and specifically the section about advocacy. While Laree's death is indeed tragic, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore not the place to post this kind of warning. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and support hiding this discussion with {{afd-privacy}} upon closure - I always feel bad writing deletion arguments for these types of articles, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and, unless the topic meets notability guidelines, an article shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia just to warn people about something. Sorry. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Although this was a tragic event, Wikipedia isn't the proper place to memorialize a loved one. Them From Space 07:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not see any evidence of anyone memorializing the deceased in the article. It does not say anything about her personal qualities or how she will be missed, as a memorial article would. Edison (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Tragic, but unfortunately not notable. Support us of {{afd-privacy}} on closure.Keep as rewritten. (GregJackP (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I see no justification for the privacy cover. There is nothing here that is contentious or unsourced that would indicate courtesy blanking being appropriate. There is no justification for blanking according to WP:CBLANK. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to changes made. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that privacy blanking is not called for. Edison (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Move the article, which is not a biography but an article about a crime to Murder of Laree Slack. Google News Archive shows the crime was covered by newspapers in 2001 and 2006, with 15 results, some reprints of the Associated Press stories. The murder was also covered in the textbook "Delinquency in society" by Robert M. Regoli & John D. Hewitt,McGraw-Hill, 2005 page 92. "Biblical" torture and murder of a 12 year old by parents is not a run of the mill crime story. The case was cited by these scholars as an example of the failure of an "intact two parent family" to prevent violence against a child. An article about a notable subject should be edited, not deleted, if there are problems with the article creator's point of view. Edison (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edison: I see that Wikipedia has numerous articles titled "Murder of..." And I found a reference to an article about the sentencing of Laree's father ( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1627859.html ). According to the publicly available portion of that article, "The sentencing came one month after jurors heard how Slack, relying on a perverse ..." I suppose that "perverse" is followed by words like "interpretation of the Bible". So perhaps it would be possible to rewrite "Laree Slack" in a way that cover's the father's interpretation of the Bible, without being an advocate either for or against that interpretation. I am willing to try to rewrite the article under the title "Murder of Laree Slack". MementoLaree (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We usually just move the existing article to the new title, which preserves the editing history. If there is no objection I could go ahead and do that. Edison (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Murder of Laree Slack and done some editing and addition of references. Edison (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under its new name. of course the name change was necessary, and thanks for that. what is sufficient is the media coverage at the time, and the strikingly unusual circumstances. i see the "1 event" overused alot. of course a person can establish notability for 1 event, its just usually not enough. this isnt an article on the daughters notability or the father, but the event itself. neither person will likely ever qualify for an article of their own. in this case, i think it is, but not for the article creators reasons.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per changes made. Withdrawal of nomination will have to wait for the outstanding Deletes to be changed as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:38, 18 February 2010 (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.

I am closely related to the family. It is a mistake to say that the family were "devout" Jehovah's Witnesses. They were inactive, they were not going to meetings, and they were not following the principles that Jehovah's Witnesses live by. We had many discussions about JW's principles, because the father did not agree with many of them. He had began living by his own principles. For instance, the "40 lashes minus one" principle that he followed in disciplining his kids was definitely NOT a principle of Jehovah's Witnesses. I think that should be made clear, somehow.