Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Andrew Pea

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. Rlendog (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Andrew Pea[edit]

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

I don't believe that this murder is notable (WP:N) because it seems to be a run-of-the-mill murder case with no lasting impact or special importance. Additionally, while there are a couple scans of newspaper pages on Facebook that lead me to believe this is not a hoax, I can find no online sources regarding the killer's identity and am somewhat uncomfortable with putting leaving this up for the world to see without additional eyes on it. There is almost zero google presence for this crime. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~agree that this is likely a non-notable murder, also almost all of the sources cited can't be verified.~~ Flat Out talk to me 06:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

change to keep now that scanned versions of the articles have been placed online. Flat Out talk to me 05:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable independent sources. Clearly a murder which received plenty of attention at the time. Simply because a case drops out of the media is NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - References don't link to any reliable independent sources, just text references. Facebook is most always not a reliable sources, except on very rare occasions. CookieMonster755 (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB does have a good point. Offline sources can always be used as references. I am changing my vote to neutral. However, Facebook and Word Press links still should be removed because they are generally not reliable sources (except on rare occasion). CookieMonster755 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Claims that the sources can't be verified or don't exist are simply not true. Offline references include the The West Australian, Sunday Independent, and Daily News. There is no requirement that sources be published online to count, which is what is implied by CookieMonster & Flat Out. Indeed the author has taken the time to scan the newspaper articles which is what all the links at the end of the references section are.

This looks like a case of systematic bias against older material. If the case was in the news today, I doubt anyone would question the notability. The case was covered by multiple papers over several years which moves it beyond a routine murder. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment the scanned versions of sources were not available at the time I voted and have changed my vote accordingly. I am aware that online versions are not a requirement however they are helpful in verifying that content matches the source and to understand the context of the event. Flat Out talk to me 05:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sustained in-depth coverage over a period of years. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (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.