Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of David Lynn Harris

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 no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of David Lynn Harris[edit]

wikipedia is not a newspaper, no indication that this event is notable enough to warrant an article. Fails WP:N/CA and despite the title, fails WP:BLP1E RadioFan (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First off, you are wrong to say this fails WP:BLP1E, as it isn't an article about a person (in fact, it was moved from an article about a person because of WP:BLP1E). I also think that you are wrong to say this is non-notable. It has received significant coverage in independent sources which have a national scope (take the book written about it for example), and a global scope (take The Sydney Morning Herald for example). Some of the sources are The New York Times, FoxNews & ABC news. As to NOTNEWS, this is a notable event, not a routine news report. It's an encyclopedic topic, and "news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics", the news reports are where most of the information is from, but that doesn't make it a news report. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Kingpin13 is the creator of the article and (as of now) the sole editor of its content. TJRC (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with User:Kingpin13 that there is no WP:BLP1E issue here. First, it's not about a living person. Second, it covers the event, not the person, which is the point of BLP1E. That second point also means there's no problem with WP:BIO1E. Nonetheless, my position, as noted below, is still that this should be deleted based on NOTNEWS. TJRC (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a news item, and a seven-year-old news item, at that. If there's any claim for notability apart from the fact that it was in the news in 2002, that's not apparent from the article. TJRC (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that having been in (global) news is a claim to notability for criminal acts. And that it is 7 years old means absolutely nothing at all. You seem to be taking parts of the policies and ignoring the rest; take for example the policy you quoted, WP:NOTNEWS, which clearly states "breaking news should not be [...] treated differently from other information". And you say that it's not apparent in the article that it is notable, the sources and coverage linked to from external links are what makes it notable, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
News reported globally is still just news. And I'm not saying the age is a separate reason for deletion; but as a mere seven-year-old news item, this article is merely a news archive and nothing more. TJRC (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTNEWS. You seem to be translating it as "Wikipedia doesn't include news", that's not the message of the policy. "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events", this is a notable event. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" this is none of the three. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.Updated below A murder/conviction isn't exactly notable in general, and there doesn't appear to be an exception for this one (regular news coverage is just that, regular). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, this event is notable. If every single murder gets global coverage then every single murder is notable (per WP:N/CA "A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope"), regardless of whether it's "regular" or not. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a section about the book following the story of the murder. This is possibly the cases main claim-to-fame. And is not "regular news coverage". Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When I made the above statement, nothing in my searches pointed to the book, however, since Kingpin has added it now, and the fact that it is published by a division of Macmillan, that is sufficient to provide the extra something for crime notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The event in and of itself, while tragic, isn't notable. There are quite literally thousands of murder victims each year. And I can think of victims that received much, much more press than this one, but don't get an article because they, like this man, simply weren't notable. For example, Danny Rolling had 8 victims. 5 were Univ. of Florida students. The case received a HUGE amount of press because it happened on a college town and the state still had recent memories of Ted Bundy's killings at Florida State. Those victims have been mentioned in hundreds of combined books, articles, TV shows. None of them have their own article because they aren't notable aside from the one event.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Can you please explain how WP:NOTNEWS applies in this case? Could you provide some examples of other murders which have received more news coverage, and have a book about them, and don't have or merit a Wikipedia page. Also try a google search of the key terms (e.g. Victim name, culprit name etc.) you'll probably be impressed with the amount of results. Also see the above comments which show why this meets both WP:N/CA and why WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First Kingpin, I already did provide an example. The 5 Univ. of Florida victims of Danny Rolling have considerable coverage, including books and TV programs, as well as news. None of them have seperate articles. The Sharon Tate murder by Manson followers is arguably one of the most written about crimes in US history. The 3 victims have their own articles because they were notable in their own right, seperate of the murders. But the event does not have it's own article. It is all under the article about Manson. Now please don't expect me to believe that this murder has received more coverage, and enduring coverage at that, than the Manson case. There is no comparison. I haven't even said Manson's first name and you know who I am talking about. That's how much coverage there has been. Jeffery Dahmer killed 17 people. His crimes have been covered extensively. Not one of his victims have an article, nor do any of his murders have seperate articles. Want to figure out how many news mentions you can find of his victims? John Wayne Gacy killed 33, none of his victims have articles, nor do any of the murders have articles. Would you care to find out how many books, movies and news articles have been written about him and his victims? Second, I think it's pretty arrogant of you to presume that I didn't check this case as well. I did and I'm not impressed. The notability is based on a single event. Period. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this is based on one killing shouldn't matter, as it's not a BLP. I'm not trying to suggest that you haven't done a google search etc. already, but just trying to point out from using a google search as an example, how much coverage there has been of this case (apologies for the way that came out, I see looking back at it why you thought I was saying you hadn't already done that). All of these cases which you have brought up are notable, and have Wikipedia articles about them (in on form or another), I'm definitely not trying to create pages for the victims, or culprit. But having an article about the event meets WP:N/CA (no, she didn't kill 13 people, but that is not what makes a murder notable) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:N/CA - Aside from the coverage in several significant news outlets, there is a book about the murder. I would like to see some of the opponents reply to Kingpin13's comments, rather than voting delete and not returning. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 20:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not replied because the original creator's comments here haven't changed my opinion on this article. The presence of a book on the topic doesn't help establish the notability of this topic. There really wasn't anything that unique about this case, I'm not sure why a book was written.--RadioFan (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am confused as to what standards of notability you are operating under. Why is a book about the topic not an independent reliable source? Also, why does significant ongoing coverage of the murder, and trial, in news sources such as New York Times, CNN, FoxNews, ABC News (all major national/global outlets) not establish notability? Finally, which part of WP:N/CA does this fail? Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered by multiple independent news organizations across the US, from NY Times to LA Times. These are not just one organization reiterating what others have written, they appeared to be independently researched and reported. Add to this that a book has been written on the murder, that only adds to the notability of the case. A new name 2008 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Error: above user states that multiple US reporting. See the article again. There is a link to an article in the Australian press and the UK. The United Kingdom and Australia are not part of the United States, but is are independent countries. There is also reporting in People Magazine. One news source reported over 40 separate articles on the murder. If the article is expanded, there could conceivablee be 100 references.Amthernandez (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, you are right that there are plenty of non-US sources. But A new name is also right in saying that there are multiple US sources, and no where does s/he say that all the sources are US. - Kingpin¹³ (talk)
Weak Delete also per WP:NOT#NEWS. This might be suitable for Wikinews, but an encyclopedia is not the place to document every murder that happens in the world. The book mentioned does give it some long term notability (if the book is established as a reliable source), but I dont see how this is any different from a scored wife killing a husband who had an affair Corpx (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because of the book that was released. Tavix | Talk 17:52, 30 June 2009 (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.