Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joe Geeling

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Srikeit 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joe Geeling[edit]

Murder of Joe Geeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

per WP:NOT a newspaper. All this is is a report of a murder - sad, newsworthy at the time, not encyclopaedic in the slightest. -Docg 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is not a section called: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What specifically at Wikipedia:NOT are you referring to? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i work for GMP and remember this case. but wikipedia is not a newspaper. Maybe transwiki this to wikinews Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no way to say "non-notable murder victim" without sounding harsh, but there it is i'm afraid. tomasz. 16:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this sad case is just one of many thousands of murders worldwide each year, and it does not appear to have had wide-ranging effects other than on those immediately involved. See the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and update references to the new style. Notability is bestowed by coverage in the BBC, The Times, The Mirror, and the Guardian. Thats the definition of notability: "multiple non trivial sources". The media bestows notability, not Wikipedians. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. News reports show it was newsworthy at the time. That does not show it is encyclopedic WP:NOTNEWS. Is there any evidence of ongoing notability? If not, let's delete, if we find that changes we can create an article then. Working out what belongs in an encyclopedia is not just a matter of counting sources.--Docg 19:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragic, transwiki to wikinews if they want it, but we should not have articles on all murder victims/cases. Davewild 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it has been said in afd's that notability doesn't "expire" or go away. If that's true, the multiple sources make this meet WP:N. I tend to think that notability doesn't go away, or we'd lose thousands of articles on historical figures that don't show up in the news much, if ever, - and certainly less than every Survivor or Idol contestant. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. We are not a newspaper, and notability is an ongoing process, just as Doc said. Will anyone want to read about this in 100 years? No. Simple question, simple answer. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most murders will gain multiple non-trivial sources, however most murders are forgotten days after they occur. Newsworthy is not the same as noteworthy. Resolute 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do we have standards or not? The general N standard is 2 independent substantial RSs--this has 4. There's no need to discuss anything else, unless you think that the principle is wrong. Personally, I think a good case could be made that it is wrong, based on this article among others. But from what I understand , it's still the basic principle that we use. If the 100 year test were the principle, Calossuarez is right about who would get eliminated. That might make sense also, at least to me, but I don't think the majority would agree at all to the elimination of all video game figures and game show contestants. DGG 03:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's seriously warped. Actually, we don't have 'standards' - we have guidelines. And they are never a substitute for using common sense and <script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AzaToth/morebits.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>your own judgement. If you do that, you will urge the deletion of stuff you think inappropriate and the retention of the stuff you think good - and hey, all without counting sources and doing an arithmetical sum. If that were the war we exercised judgement, we'd replace AfD participants with bots. Now, stop counting sources and think, what do you think?--Docg 07:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doc G, you would be correct, if there were only one person who could decide everything. But your qualifications by common sense will not match mine (though they might come fairly close), and of the tens of thousands of people actively writing WP articles, we will have that many views of common sense, and they will not agree. So, unless we are to have a dictator as editor in chief of the encyclopedia to make the decisions, we need some way of finding rational agreement. IKNOWITINMYHEART one way or another is not the sort of thing which can lead to consensus or stability. The proof of that is quite simple: look at the different opinions in this day's worth of AfDs. For about the one-half of them where I know enough to have even an opinion, I could go through and sort them into two classes; and you could as well. and so could everyone else. DGG 02:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on principle. I agree that the notability guidelines are not clear here. I echo DGG's sentiments. Bradybd 06:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're not a compendium of every murder ever committed in the world each year. This is a sad occurrence, but it's not demonstrably encyclopedic. FCYTravis 09:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on principle. The principle being: WP:NOT#Indiscriminate. Not everything that made the papers is encyclopaedic; this has no apparent lasting cultural or historical significance, it belongs in WikiNews if anywhere. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. Most murders inherently make the news; if we documented them all because of that "notability", we'd end up with something far from an encyclopedia. - Tangotango (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I see no lasting notability here, and no need to sensationalise the plight of a victim. And there is specifically a section in WP:NOT that says, in effect, we are not a newspaper. Do the ethical thing, not do the "source counting" thing. ++Lar: t/c 11:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my well-explained reasoning on the talk page of WP:NOTNEWS. This has no lasting historical significance, which is what encyclopedias are for. However it is a once-off newsworthy event, which is what newspapers are for. Zunaid©® 12:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please take a fresh look at WP:NOT under "[edit] Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" where it now says "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. 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 was added to WP:NOT on May 28 by Jimbo Wales. Also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons where it now says "Articles about living people notable only for one event: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry. ..." Edison 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up and refrence in new styleThis article is not sensationalist and the guidlines on notability ae that articles do not diminish in notability over time. This isarticle is not a biograph it is an account of the murder there were originally two seperate articles on the murdere and the victim which have been merged. The article retains notability due to the nature of the crime being a minor killing a minor. The article should be expanded and should remain as wikipedia is not a paper based encyclopedia and there is no limit to thwe number of artilces. This artilce does need some work doing to is and does require a better rtefrencing but overall must remain.--Lucy-marie 16:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable murder victim Lugnuts 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs some cleaning up but has sufficient notability per Wikipedia:N. Drew30319 19:34, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joe_Geeling&oldid=1142611565"