Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommaso Onofri (second 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 keep, however a couple more news sources to complement the existing ones will never hurt. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Onofri[edit]

This was originally deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned, citing irregularities in the debate, and new evidence. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nothing wrong with it, seems verifiable. -- Chris speranza! chat edits 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough notable. Let wait if the topic will become encyclopedic, else it can be merged in some list/historic article. Deleted also on the it.wikipedia with Article not (yet) encyclopedic, but of news characteristic. Move to wikinews. Cate 18:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I posted in the deletion review, news coverage spans multiple continents and over a month, the case was primary subject of multiple independent sources per WP:BIO and also passes the criterion Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated. See Category:Murdered children and Category:Kidnapped children. As long as the article is biographic in nature there is no reason to move this to Wikinews. A couple of sources are listed on Talk:Tommaso Onofri. ~ trialsanderrors 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per t&e. Meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWikipedia is not a memorial, however cruel and tragic the death of the child. The cites on the reference page show that a newswire story went out on April 8 or 9 and was carried by a number of newspapers, which makes this tragedy suitable for Wikinews but not Wikipedia. Edison 19:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT a memorial reads Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered. WP:NOT a news source reads Wikipedia should not offer firsthand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See Current Events for examples. As I posted above the coverage spanned over a month from his death on March 2. If you don't like policy as it is, try to change it, but don't try to misrepresent it to suit your predilections. ~ trialsanderrors 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per t&e. hateless 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - too many precedents to cite, starting with Adam Walsh, Amber Hagerman, and Jimmy Ryce.B.Wind 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the three people that you list have some usefull information. Do you think it is possible to find encyclopedic text for this article? Half of the article try to exclain notability, but really don't belong to enclyclopedia (maybe in trivia section). So my question: "Could this article have potential enclyclopedic relevance?" (BTW an other way to close this discussion is to really expand the article). Cate 07:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a huge thing in Italy. It provides context for a widely perceived and discussed pattern of violence against children. Stammer 11:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per t&e, specifically that this has news coverage spanning multiple continents for over a month now. RFerreira 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, would you accept the deletion of the Lindbergh case just because in Afghanistamn nobody has ever heard of it? Rough 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tommaso Onofri is very notable, based on the media coverage, on the sides that have plead for his release (e.g. the pope, Italian football clubs, etc.), etc. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:52, 1 December 2006 (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.