Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Anthony Walker

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Anthony Walker[edit]

Another blow-by-blow crime report. Again newsworthy, but not encyclopedic. Is it just me or do these all seem to stress alleged racial overtones? -Doc^g 14:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely well-known crime, was widely covered at the time by all major British newspapers. Yes, a lot of these stress racial overtones: that's one of the things that turns an otherwise run-of-the-mill crime into something that makes front page headlines in national papers. Definitely notable by the definition at WP:N. JulesH 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of on-going notability? Sure, murders and trials hit the newspapers. So what?--Doc^g 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard news story blown up by the tabloid press due to the involvement of a relation of a professional footballer. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the crime was the subject of much news coverage at the time, I think this article would be more suited for Wikinews. The Sunshine Man 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wonder if murdercruft is going to be the latest trend on wikipedia. How many of these articles can people create? Lurker 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cases like these are a bit murkier than the usual notability dispute, as it does in fact meet notability guidelines and has multiple, reliable sources. However the victim has no notability beyond the murder, making this more a news article than an encyclopedia article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Waffling keep. There is an abundance of murdercruft on Wikipedia to be sure, but this one surpasses the standard level of media attention that these sort of stories tend to generate. Burntsauce 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newscruft, murdercruft, whatever. delete. --Tony Sidaway 17:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the BBC isn't a reliable source, I don't know what is. And anyone calling something cruft isn't giving a reason for deletion that meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Its just saying "I don't like it". It also is showing regional bias against events outside the USA. If it was covered on CNN you would have heard of the event. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm in the UK, and I'd also say delete any similar cases from any country. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I am also British and a great fan of the BBC. Please don't second guess people's motives ond certainly don't accuse them of bias.--Doc^g 21:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N in respect of crime figures (victims, criminals, defendants, witnesses) is in process of being fixed. WP≠WikiPoliceblotter. Carlossuarez46 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Even though we do not have to keep an article on every crime which gets a couple of newspaper stories, per WP:NOT, this crime is somewhat more than ordinary in its import, since it was racially motivated (per "urban life Darcus Howe. New Statesman. London: Jan 9, 2006. Vol.19, Iss. 893; pg. 17, 1 pgs" the killers were angered to see a black student walking with his white girlfriend). This is not included in the article, and I'm not sure with all the BLP deletions if we are now allowed to mention it.), a killer was related to a prominent sports figure (not unlike Michael Skakel the Kennedy relative who was convicted of murdering a teenage girl Martha Moxley giving that crime enhanced notability), and they fled outside the country before being apprehended. Edison 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep nominator as well as subsequent "delete" supporters have not mentioned any specific wikipedia policies/guidelines this article violates. It says very clearly that when you nominate something you need to put that in there, and if the delete supporters can't even help you out, i don't know why we're bothering having this discussion. Barsportsunlimited 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A basis for deleting an article about someone or something which has been in the news is WP:NOT where it says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and continues "The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." This should apply to articles about crimes or dead people, even though it was written with the apparent intent of deleting articles which might embarass persons who were in the news. Policies are also written by the consensus of AFDs, where it appears that a number of editors feel an encyclopedia is not a newspaper or a news/crime archive, or a collection medical oddities or water cooler stories or cute animal stories. Edison 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The crime was a particulary grusome one and was purely racially motivated, involving to men who premeditated his death by rushing to get a murder weapon. You can compare it two other articles Stephen Lawrence and Damilola Taylor. I strongly agree that not every crime or criminal needs a forensic examination on Wikipedia. But this is still a notable incident and is still used by journalists to demonstrate hate crime in the UK. Mike33 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI do not count the Independent front page as an measure of notability; I do count BBC. DGG 04:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just another article to be proposed for deletion in the binge being undertaken by DocG. This article is a highly notable murder as it was racially motivated and this was cited by the judge and a large voluyme of media coverage was given to this case.--Lucy-marie 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just an average murder - the racial motive, age/popularity of the victim and link to Joey Barton ensured this was front page stuff.--Vintagekits 15:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is denying this was front-page stuff. But front-page stuff isn't necessarily worthy of a Wikipedia article. The question is- is there a long-lasting effect? Lurker 16:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Racial murder cases get lots of attention. Think Emmett Till or Amadou Dialo. Certain crime victims, by the very nature of the crime, merit bios. Think Kitty Genovese. Rather than being "unencyclopedic", I believe that no encyclopedic purpose is achieved by deleting these sorts of articles. --JJay 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the BBC is a perfectly valid source here. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep - this was a notorious racially-motivated murder - not an "average" murder. Note for USA users: murder is much less common in UK than USA.User:Peterkingiron 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable (as in notorious) racially motivated murder worthy of encyclopedic coverage. RFerreira 07:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Why? What is the clear evidence it was racially motivated? Just because the attackers were white and the victim black? Would you say that if it were the other way around? How do you know this entire crowd didn't know each other and hated each other for schoolboy reasons which had nothing to do with race? Wikipedia should not be an alternative emotive Daily Mirror. Thousands of people are murdered annually. David Lauder 11:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CPS and practically every media outlet regardless of political outlook would tend to suggest it was racially motivated. Got a source that says different? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just my everyman opinion thats all. You know as well as I do that the media blow these things up. You will also know how youths behave towards each other and the language they use. My view is that actually proving a crime is racist is almost impossible. You will also know that the CPS plays to the gallery (and political pressure). Whatever, I cannot see how murders of this sort warrant inclusion in an encylcopaedia. There must have been thousands of similar murders int he USA, South Africa, etc., and if we include this we should include them. David Lauder 11:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I've already agreed with the deletion above, but there's no denying that it was clearly a racially motivated crime. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the articles first Afd - it was intially called Anthony Walker (now a redirect) and passed Afd in 2006. (It came up on my suggestbot today) Mike33 09:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High-profile, heavily reported murder case. In what way is this not encyclopaedic? -- Necrothesp 23:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:As per nominator's remarks. Nothing encyclopaedic about this at all. It is just another page from the crime registers hyped up by the media. Had he been an MP or important figure it might have been different. David Lauder 07:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not all murder victims are encyclopedic! --Counter-revolutionary 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tell us which ones are then. -- Necrothesp 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People like Ian Gow, Airey Neave and Sir Norman Stronge, oh, and Prince Louis Mountbatten or Faisal II &c.--Counter-revolutionary 10:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it - when a bigot is killed then thats notable but when someone is killed by a bigots thats not. Glad I got that cleared up.--Vintagekits 16:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if they're famous before they're murdered then they're notable. If they're famous for being murdered then they're not? No Yvonne Fletcher. No victims of Jack the Ripper. Basically only people who have been assassinated. Sorry, I completely disagree. However, Vintagekits's remark was utterly uncalled for. -- Necrothesp 00:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ridiculously notable murder, one of the greatest in terms of media coverage in recent years. I'm surprised this got nominated, some news incidents are incredibly trivial and forgotten about very quickly (Essjay, Joshua Gardner etc.), this isn't. - hahnch e n 18:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the most notable murders in recent times, heavily reported by non-trivial third party sources. Myles Long 21:25, 11 June 2007 (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.