Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Seth Rich (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. tedder (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Seth Rich[edit]

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

As described at 2nd nomination, there are concerns that this event does not satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Previous nominations were closed with no concensus, but with recommendation that this be submitted post the 2016 US elections. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets "Wikipedia:Notability (events)." The crime "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The story has been mentioned again in the news each time a reward has been offered and has attracted news anaylsis stories. The article has been viewed 63,000 times in the past month[1] compared with 48,000 views for the Lindbergh kidnapping.[2] Much of the interest in the case has been generated by conspiracy theories on the internet, which in turn have been mentioned by mainstream media. But it is irrelevant why reliable sources find the story worth reporting. Without this attention however the crime probably would still be notable as media routinely extensively report cases of middle class people murdered in middle class neighborhoods. TFD (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As already indicated in the previous AfDs the subject fully meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. However, as I mentioned in the last AfD, constant and sustained edit warring has stripped this article of almost all the content indicating that notability. That censorship continues (in fact it looks like the article is in an even worse state that it was in September), but the situation is reversible. Hopefully, now that elections are over, and as the timeperiod between the murder and today increases, all the spurious blp assertions being used to exclude content will become less and less arguable with a straight face, and the article can undergo substantial improvement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edits aren't wine. They don't get better just because some time has passed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they are wine, wine in a bottle opened half a year ago! I think it is time to reassess those old edits and arguments that censored sourced content for blp reasons. Their blp arguments might now be sour to even the roughest palette. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Washington Post coverage about how it was an example of the general mens of the 2016 US Presidential Election six months after the fact is lasting enough coverage for me at this point [3]. I'm fine with revisiting in 12-18 months, but when its still getting coverage in major sources the day before this nomination and the main argument is that it has no lasting impact, I find it hard to vote !delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hierarchy of death is a peculiar thing, and I do not endorse that hierarchy. But there it is. Disproportionate amounts of media attention are paid to various deaths. Sometimes the underlying reason is racist, or sexist, or tinfoilhattist, but I'm not aware that Wikipedia editors are entitled to fight that particular hierarchy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. This is absolutely notable and certainly well and reliably sourced. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For a crime that happened almost seven months ago, it is still getting significant coverage by the Washington Post, a major news outlet, and some local news outlets such as NBC Washington and WJLA. ^Falling_Gravity 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep – How many RfCs do we need? — JFG ^talk 09:01, 21 January 2017 (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.