Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. There's two sides here, with wildly differing views on policy, and it's the second tight nomination for the article in under four months. Although the last one closed as a keep thanks to a flurry of late !votes, I don't feel there's any real consensus on this and any nominations in the medium-term are likely to come to the same conclusion. If the right people look at this on the right day, it's a keep, and on the other, it's a delete. As such, I'm closing it as a no consensus. I'd also advise to avoid renomination in the immediate future. KaisaL (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not understand why this is here. kids go to buy drugs and get killed. killers went to prison. business as usual. I'm sorry for the families, but one of the foreseeable outcomes of buying drugs on the street is death.Wikipedia is not a memorial and this event does not rise to the level of notability required in WP:CRIME. John from Idegon (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not understand why it is here either, particularly because the previous AfD, well-attended by experienced editors, appeared to reach a consensus to Keep, (despite the SPA who weighed in with the final iVote.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article was Kept per a AfF result as current as December 2016. The nominator gives a IDONTLIKEIT rationale without pointing out anything he find wrong with it. This article is well sourced and notable per WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous AfD was closed as no consensus, not keep. The closer noted that the delete arguements were stronger than the keep arguements. John from Idegon (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accurate. But that AfD stood at 9-4 favoring keep, several experienced editors had backed their keep votes with substantive opinions, and it had only been relisted once when the closing editor closed it with the comment "The result was no consensus."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing editor returned 10 minutes later and wrote "Just to add a rationale..." well,other editors can look at the old AfD, (where I opined Keep.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These two murders, while tragic as well as garnering publicity at the time they happened, was one event and does not rise to WP:CRIME. If legislation or ordinances had passed as a result of these murders, then that would help it rise to being notable. As it stands now, the article clearly fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep topic meets WP:N fairly easily. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:EVENT looks for enduring historical significance, widespread impact, coverage lasting beyond a normal news cycle. These appear to be lacking. A sad case. --Bistropha (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I have to presume that you have not performed a simple Google search or similar before making this !vote. There are plenty of coverage that has lasted for a long time and it has had per sources found a widespread impact concerning the so diverse media coverage of this case.BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage was not routine, it was both extensive (national and British press) and lasted long beyound normal news cycle, with stories like [1] discussing it long after trial was over and sentences meted out.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't sound like news to me. Drug-murders are, sadly enough, pretty commonplace in Detroit, and to be perfectly honest, this article feels like an implicit anti-Black Lives Matter article. Also..."The case drew attention again during sentencing in 2015 due to defendant's unrepentant attitude, yawning and shifting in their seats"? Really? I suppose I can get my own Wikipedia article by sitting behind a computer all day, editing articles. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is not an argument. The reasons why a particular crime draws attention is not relevant here. Only the fact that coverage was widespread, in-depth, and sustained.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that some of the sources in the article (In Detroit, hiding bodies is easy; Williams, Corey . Journal - Gazette; Ft. Wayne, Ind. [Ft. Wayne, Ind]03 Aug 2012: A.1.) are not coverage of the incident per se, but, rather non-routine news articles that use the incident to illustrate a wider issue by using a notorious crime as an example. A Ft. Wayne newspaper is not local to Detroit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced that a suspect's behavior and movements during sentencing guarantees a subject's notability. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyrus the Penner, Welcome to Wikiepdia, I see that you are fairly new here and it can take a while to learn the ropes. You might want to read WP:N, the gist of which is notability is gauged by coverage of an incident in WP:RS, not by our opinions of that coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • News media noting that a video of perp ranting at sentencing "went viral" is WP:NOTROUTINE coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have reverted User:Cyrus the Penner's unexplained and undiscussed mass removal of sourced information form the article. As a relatively new user, Penner may not have been aware of the care that must be take to justify the deletion of information, or of the degree to which deletion of material form WP:RS such as the Daily Herald newspaper is frowned upon as bad form during an AfD, especially when done by a user arguing against notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • First and foremost, I am pretty sure Daily Mail is now universally banned as a source. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, first and foremost the overall consensus here is that the case has been covered by a diverse number of media. BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • But Daily Mail has been universally banned, though; that I'm sure of. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greg, reading your comment leads me to believe you misread. I did not remove any Daily Herald source; I removed Daily Mail. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intensity explained In case other editors are, like Nom, unaware of why this murder is regarded as notable, the fact is that despite the neutral wording of the article, the case came to national attention because it appeared to be a racism-related crime. For example, searching keywords Bobbish + Kudla + racist brings up coverage like this form Fox News [2], [3], PJ Media, [4], [[Gateway Pundit]: [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think users are overall not making the research themselves to make a good decision on this article. A simple search online and you see that this passes the guidelines needed. Plenty of coverage, national and international. BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Did a lot of reworking on the article. A lot of things need to be simplified. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improving an article is often a better approach than deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still standing by my opinion that this article is non-notable and unnecessary, though. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are entitled to your opinion. Mass removal of sourced material, details about crime, during AfD while arguing that case is non-notable is more problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not remove any sourced material. I merely rephrased unnecessary quotes and created sections. Cyrus the Penner (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps, as a newish editor, Penner is unaware that his edits are visible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT per Bistropha. BTW I have seen BabbaQ's response and don't find it persuasive. The coverage doesn't seem to have been lasting and in-depth - it hit the news around the time of the murder, and around sentencing. E.M.Gregory's point under "Intensity explained" is actually an argument in favour of deletion. The followup coverage has been fleeting, as examples in the broader context of purportedly racism-related crimes, not in depth as to continuiing relevant of this one crime. This is a very sad situation, but a single event. Martinp (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyrus the Penner -- pls see Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts. Quis separabit? 02:01, 1 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murders_of_Jourdan_Bobbish_and_Jacob_Kudla_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1083981082"