Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Lee Winn

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Lee Winn[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. The article itself does not assert any reason this person should have a bio on Wikipedia. It is entirely about the crime, which although was terrible, certainly does not rise to WP:CRIME. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a lot of news sources or book sources. Fails the event criteria. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are valid and the information is pertinent. The crime is noteworthy, although it happened quite some time ago. If Wikipedia resorts to nitpicking it will become stale. Contributors deserve the right to be creative and the rules should be extended in some cases. If you contend that the sources are not enough, work with the body of the article, and try and improve it!Robert (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It troubles me that the editor above is referring (see edit summary) to his !vote as a "response". Please don't take this personally. Wikipedia policy on what crime articles we carry is fairly specific. See the links listed in the nomination. This tragic event did not receive extensive widespread coverage, nor did it cause any change in society. It is simply a very tragic local event, nothing more. Sadly, numerous people get murdered for little or no reason every day. This particular one just caused someone to write a Wikipedia article about it, an article that should have been deleted long ago. This crime does not qualify for an article about it, but this is not an article about a crime. It purports to be an article about a person, in other words a biography. Sad as it is, getting murdered does not make a person eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sad, but all too common in the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 7 September 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.