Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Farah Noor Adams

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. Pace BabbaQ Wikipedia is not based on news; the best secondary sources are books--but that's by. WP:LASTING is of course entirely relevant as part of our notability guidelines, and the keep-voters do not make a cogent argument that this was indeed an event of some (even any) lasting effect. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Farah Noor Adams[edit]

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

article is about a murder which does not appear to meet Wikipedia's criteria for general notability Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Got serious publicity at the time. PatGallacher (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this crime doesn't appear to have any lasting significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- that was my reaction too, but Clarityfiend put it in words better than I did. From the article, it's unclear what impact, if any, the crime had on society -- no analysis is offered, or any implications discussed. It all appears "routine crime blotter" material, a retelling of which does not appear to be needed in an encyclopedia, and is also probably insensitive to the victim's family. BLP1E applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons described above. Blythwood (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep This murder did indeed make headlines across the UK, even after it turned out not to be a hate crime, nor a crime by an immigrant, and not a case of wife abuse - any of which might have caused coverage to continue. What did cause it to continue was the fact taht she had phoned 911 but help did not arrive. This aspect of the crime was still being covered by the BBC 3 years later [[1]]. Moreover, national coverage continues even after it became clear that not targeted, merely murdered for power walking along a park where an indigenous predator dragged her into the woods [2], and here [3] she is in the news years after she was murdered, inspiring local civic improvers to enact a new safety scheme for that park.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NOTTEMPORARY. Notability does not go away simply because a article subject does not receive as much attention anymore because of time passing. Also article quality or length is irrelevant against wiki guidelines. clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not sure if the sources offered on the aftermath are sufficient: The BBC article offers three sentences on the subject:

"Yet Hannah's tragic case is not a one-off. In 2005 Farah Noor Adams was raped and murdered in Glasgow. She had made a number of silent calls when she spotted she was being stalked by her eventual killer. But they too were cut off by operators when she failed to respond."

Local civic improvement is extremely local. It does not rise to the level offered in other articles, see for example: Carrollton_bus_collision#Aftermath, with a wide ranging discussion on bus safety, new regulations, MADD, etc. The crime that is the subject of this discussion did not have the same lasting effect. The news that the subject received from the news outlets probably falls under WP:ROUTINE and is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS .A lady is raped and murdered and the accused is sentenced .But there is no WP:LASTING coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous comment misunderstands guideline, i.e., lasting coverage cuch ad inspiring a new policy or program, does support notability, but the converse is not true, that is, the lack of lasting coverage does not negate notability that has already been acquired because WP:NOTTEMPORARY. However, in this coverage there was long term coverage becasue of the failure of the 911 system issue in this case, and there was LASTING coverage in the form of a city program that RS describe as inspired by this murder under which safety improvements were made to the park wehere she was killed, raped and tortured. Penultimate comment above, by contrast, is correct in wondering whether the coverage in this case was sufficient. Further searches might well turn up more coverage. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LASTING and NOTNEWS are irrelevant here. Lasting, do you expect consistent coverage of a case like this from day 1 to present time. Never happens. Notnews is irrelevant as Wikipedia is based on news.BabbaQ (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2016 (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.