Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Luis Andres Colmenares Case
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Luis Andres Colmenares Case[edit]
- The Luis Andres Colmenares Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
How is this death not an example of 1E? Coverage notwithstanding, I do not see the encyclopedic relevance of what appears to be a single, tragic event. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On 26 February, 2012, more than a year after the tragic event happened, people organized protests in 11 Colombian cities and towns, demanding proper investigation of the case.[1] It doesn't look like an "ordinary" suicide/murder. Unfortunately I can't read Spanish ... but I think the article deserves proper discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without prejudice. I'd like to give the article a chance to develop, for writers to get the sources translated and all. If after some time—and a day is not enough time—notability isn't established, then I support renomination for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article shouldn't be removed, this case has received HUGE exposure in Colombian media, high ranking government officials are being investigated for corruption, for being involved on modifying evidence, trying to close the case earlier and trying to change the prosecutor[1]. Also there has been a huge response and rejection from the Colombian People around the world[2], several manifestations took place around the country, people claimed for justice and the true to be revealed for Luis Andres murder[3] --Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because most of the sources are in Spanish the update of this article is taking longer than usual. We are trying to gather and translate this information as fast and accurate as possible, please reconsider deletion of this article --Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sources on the article do demonstrate sustained coverage. Though it is one event, so to speak, it is still received significant coverage decades later. This clearly demonstrates the significant, reliable and sustained coverage needed for the subject to meet the GNG. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <<<please do not delete this page. Is the only way to inform other people around the world about a case that is very famous in Colombia. Very rich and corrupt families, politicians and influent people trying to cover an assasination, but the majority of Colombians are sure after evidence has been found and revealed by the local press, that it was a murder and people claim that the guilty should payfor what they did. They should not be allowed to "win" the case by using influence and paying money. More than a murder it is what is behind, the lack of moral and values and a society claiming for justice! Several blogs and a group in facebook with around 30.000 participants are doing a huge effort to support the family of the the murdered, Luis Andres Colmenares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.15.161 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the only way. As you said, people can inform about the case using blogs and Facebook. Whether the case will be included on Wikipedia is based on whether the event meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with C.Fred. Wikipedia is not on a mission for justice or truth, it is not a "prolonged hand" of any efforts of social movements. Aside from the above mentioned guidelines for notability, I would like to point out that we should reflect reality in a neutral way.
- And yes, Wikipedia is not intended to be that channel (there are other places to do that), the reason of opening a Wikipedia page for this particular case is merely informative and unbiased. Colombia is a country where cases like this happen everyday (that is true), but the because of the nature of the elements, and the way the evidences were exposed, Colombian people are standing and raising their voice of in conformity and protest in a massive way. Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The story, as it stands now, is incomplete. The Spanish version of this article and the sources available mention that the mother and lawyer of one of the suspects attempted to manipulate facts and influence a 'high ranking government official' (National Director of Public Prosecutions) in order to close the case prematurely. The information leaked, which provoked an outrage of Colombian public and media and led to the re-opening of the case. People, organized mainly by social-networking media, began organizing protests against the corruption in the Colombian justice apparatus. The unfinished story continues. This is (at least in my opinion) what excludes the event from our WP:BLP1E frame. The continuing consequences of the case may be valuable for this project, as they show:
- b) the situation in the Colombian justice in the 21st century on a specific and notable case
- a) the power of today's social-networking media and their ability to press on a state administration in a Latin American country
- I don't think we should delete this kind of information. Instead of it we should focus on developing it in a neutral way. The article has potential, the information is notable, verifiable and expandable. Just my opinion. Please, let me know if I missed something important or misinterpreted the situation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few Wikipedia principles that should be considered in the decision to delete or not this article: Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes. If information on this topic needs to be published, there are many media outlets. Another issue with this article is WP:recentism; in-depth information on current events is more appropriately under the sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia do not promote any agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including WP:Verifiability and the WP:neutral point of view. I suggest to neutrally summarize notable topics on this article using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to particular views. Even though this event may be notable due to the media coverage that has reached, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of any of the individual involved goes beyond the context of this single event, the coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Atizinha (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Atizinha. It is quite clear that this page was created as a continuation of an online campaign, take a look at the above comments by User:Vivaemptiness ("We are trying to gather and translate this information..." - who is "We"??) or the POV claims of IP 178.83.15.161. Recently, I removed another POV edit from the unfinished article. I don't think that "recentism" applies here, this case has changed significantly from 2010 and has several important facets, which was noted by many media outlets. I agree completely with your claim that we need a neutral summary of the topic, but I don't see any problems with the overemphasis of the individuals involved in the case. As far as I know, there's only one article about the event, and it is open to editing and further improvements. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be some bias here, Vejvančický. I understand there is a very active group on Facebook that is claiming for justice in this particular case. I would argue that a reason to publish this article should be because of the "HUGE exposure in Colombian media" . Very concerned about justification provided by user 178.83.15.161. Somehow, I agree with Fred: more time should be given to decide upon deletion; however, because it is an ongoing judicial case, there are still some facts that should be proved in court, despite the evidence has been published in the media and therefore, proper edit should be considered. Atiz (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia covers also some ongoing cases, we have a special template notifying readers about it, see {{live}}. Perhaps it should be added to the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We are trying to gather and translating this information"...That means me and other people that saw lack of information about this case in English. I also said that I'm trying to translate as accurate as possible. As I stated above the reason of opening this page was merely informative. And more information will be added as we get it. This case is in progress and the first hearing will take place on Monday [1] . More information will be posted when both parties (defense and prosecution) lay down their thesis. Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia covers also some ongoing cases, we have a special template notifying readers about it, see {{live}}. Perhaps it should be added to the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be some bias here, Vejvančický. I understand there is a very active group on Facebook that is claiming for justice in this particular case. I would argue that a reason to publish this article should be because of the "HUGE exposure in Colombian media" . Very concerned about justification provided by user 178.83.15.161. Somehow, I agree with Fred: more time should be given to decide upon deletion; however, because it is an ongoing judicial case, there are still some facts that should be proved in court, despite the evidence has been published in the media and therefore, proper edit should be considered. Atiz (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Atizinha. It is quite clear that this page was created as a continuation of an online campaign, take a look at the above comments by User:Vivaemptiness ("We are trying to gather and translate this information..." - who is "We"??) or the POV claims of IP 178.83.15.161. Recently, I removed another POV edit from the unfinished article. I don't think that "recentism" applies here, this case has changed significantly from 2010 and has several important facets, which was noted by many media outlets. I agree completely with your claim that we need a neutral summary of the topic, but I don't see any problems with the overemphasis of the individuals involved in the case. As far as I know, there's only one article about the event, and it is open to editing and further improvements. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few Wikipedia principles that should be considered in the decision to delete or not this article: Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes. If information on this topic needs to be published, there are many media outlets. Another issue with this article is WP:recentism; in-depth information on current events is more appropriately under the sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia do not promote any agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including WP:Verifiability and the WP:neutral point of view. I suggest to neutrally summarize notable topics on this article using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to particular views. Even though this event may be notable due to the media coverage that has reached, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of any of the individual involved goes beyond the context of this single event, the coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Atizinha (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient public interest. Perhaps not public interest in the US< but Wikipediacovers the world on equal terms. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 17 March 2012 (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.