Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kara Borden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was keep, subject to review in a few months. - DS 16:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kara Borden

  • Keep I found this EXTREMELY informative. Thank you.


I don't see the value in this article. There is no information about her and apart from the tragic events of the murder it is NN. --Kalsermar 19:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - WP:NOT a memorial. --Aurochs
  • Delete per [1].PJM 21:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, considering that she is still a minor, and is currently considered a "victim" in the murder/kidnapping. --TangentIdea 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I object, for the moment. I have no idea what "NN" means. Until she is clearly identified as a victim, and until David G. Ludwig gets his article -- where she will be FULLY IDENTIFIED -- keep it, and let it grow. --FourthAve 22:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this story did generate national coverage--Fallout boy 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If she still has notability in a year, it can be recreated. For now, it should go. Dottore So 23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the time being, let's see what gets added as the story progresses. Perhaps she'll turn out similar to Rachelle Waterman, perhaps not. Let's let the article stay, it's not hurting anything by existing. If its still NN in a few months, then we can delete it.--Azathar 06:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect. If we have something on this case, it should be at the name of her parents or at that of her boyfriend's (the suspected murderer), not at hers. - Andre Engels 09:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with the "keep and review" later camp. This may well be something significant or it may be nothing.--SockpuppetSamuelson 15:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and likely to become more so. Rast 16:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; her story's been all over the news. She gets about 2500 hits on Google News as of right now. Decide on any redirects later, after the case has developed more; I favor keeping her article separate from David Ludwig's. I'll certainly be watching the case for future information; this article and David J. Ludwig are probably going to expand significantly over time.--Idont Havaname 04:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I have a feeling more might come out of this, judging by what I've come across. --Cooleyez229 08:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just because, I don't really give a shit about it, but keep it anyway. Isn't This Where...We Came In? 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Case has made an impact in many viewers (especially in America), and well - there's no basis for the deletion, to be quite frank. I know many people don't believe in the media's decisioning to influence America and etc., but it definitely is a noteable subject. --Mrmiscellanious 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • If this article gets deleted, I would like to request that the vote-for-deletion on Melody Pomeroy get reopened. At least Kara Borden became nationally famous. 71.65.54.92 20:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment A lot of the voters here don't seem to understand why this was listed for deletion. The current notablility of the subject is not being argued. The future notability is. I quite doubt that this case will have any lasting impact on anything, or that anybody will remember or care about it in four months. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • That may be the case, but right now, it is somewhat notable. If no one cares in 4 months, then put it back up on AfD.--Azathar 06:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it has been SIX days and there is no consensus to delete. Not including comments and sockpuppets, There are 8 votes to KEEP, 4 votes to DELETE, 1 Vote to DELETE/REDIRECT, and 1 OBJECTION. Adding in the 7 sockpuppet votes, there would be 15 votes to KEEP, and still only 4(5) votes to DELETE. 8-4 (or 15-4) do not make a consensus to delete, and this page should be KEPT, and the AfD notice removed. I have to go and do something at the moment, and only have a few minutes to write this, but, if it's not done sometime soon, I'll review the AfD policy and follow the instructions to remove it myself.--Azathar 04:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I count 8 keeps and 6 deletes (57%-43%) so I guess there is no consensus and it should be kept. I disagree but such is the result of the process. Hopefully the article will someday be a true biograpical article but I don't see how. So, does a moderator close the debate and remove the AfD notice after verifying the vote and eligibilities to vote or does it fall to the nominator (me)? It was my first nomination and I'm still not sure about the procedure in full.--Kalsermar 16:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet votes

  • KEEP! News is news.. she is now HISTORY. - 206.132.98.254 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Erika
  • Keep: It represents the facts in the case.
  • Keep Why not, its a forum for other kids to come and see what people think of her, whether she is victim or not, besides, it will only grow from here on out for awhile, and theres nothing objectionable that I can see. GC
As to why not, see item #5: [2] PJM 02:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, There is nothing objectionable about it. Even though she is a minor, her name has already made it into the news. This article has not exposed anything new that would cause further harm, but has instead stuck to a news-based perspective. This article is based on the publicly known facts of the case and has refrained from making judgements on the case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.201.116.125 (talk • contribs).
    • The AfD isn't about objectionability so much as relevance. Kara Borden is not deemed relevant enough to have a Wikipedia article at this time, and probably will never meet that standard (what seperates her from the thousands of other children of murdered people who don't happen to have Wikipedia articles?) --Aurochs
  • Keep; Her name is all over the place anyway. We don't know that she is a victim yet, and if she is, as unfortunate as this may be, her name will continue to be all over the news until this nightmare is over. Whoever doesn't like it doesn't have to read it. Doesn't look like these kids were looking for privacy if they have blogs all over the net. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.12 (talk • contribs).
  • KEEP: you better keep it, this is what wiki is for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.243.218.127 (talk • contribs).

KEEP - Since her actions were newsworthy, they are also wikiworthy.

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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Kara_Borden_0b24.html"