Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 TTC subway murder
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 delete. This is the sort of thing that belongs on Wikinews. --Coredesat 07:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 TTC subway murder
Unremarkable urban homicide; article makes no assertion of importance or wide public note. Basically an ephemeral news story with no apparent encyclopedic nature. --MCB 06:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunately, murders happen all of the time, and this one does not appear to be particularly notable. Lankiveil 06:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, non-notable murder. Hut 8.5 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. As Lankiveil says, unfortunate as this event may be, it doesn't seem to be any more notable than most other murders. Adambro 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete can't see why this was created. It doesn't even mention the victim's name for heaven's sake - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I think where the murder happened makes it notable. The Toronto subway has traditionally been relatively safe compared to New York's, for example, and the TTC now spends a lot of money on security, including its relatively new special constable security unit. Murders are less common in Toronto than in the United States, and particularly those where the victim does not know the assailant. The article is also relevant as part of the history of the Toronto Transit Commission. --Eastmain 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Eastmain. --GreenJoe 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable homicide. "This is notable because the TTC is safer than the NYC subway" is POV, and not a valid defense. Any relevence to the TTC itself can be put in the article on the TTC. Resolute 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Although murder is a ghastly crime, this one doesn't appear to be more notable than most, which it would need to be for Wikipedia. When something like this happens, it makes it into wikipedia if it's made at least national news (I listen to the news daily and never heard of this) or international. Being stabbed at a subway station in the wee hours of the day is not notable. And WP:NOT a memorial. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 19:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; violates WP:N --Mhking 22:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Mention it at Victoria Park (TTC) if you must. -Joshuapaquin 04:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is notable because it is a rare event in Canada. As it stands, Category:Crime in Canada probably needs expansion rather than reduction. John Vandenberg 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Murders are not rare in Canada, sadly. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- If this murder on a train is not a notable event, which murder on a train is? So far, there is no evidence on Wikipedia in the category system that this event is not rare. Unless someone has credible proof otherwise, this is the most notable train murder in Canada that has to date been recorded in Wikipedia. What I am trying to point out is that we should not delete articles "on principle" in area's that lack coverage. When we have better coverage of a subject, then the dross can be trimmed. Doing so beforehand is premature optimisation. John Vandenberg 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why does it matter that this occured on a train? Resolute 14:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- If this murder on a train is not a notable event, which murder on a train is? So far, there is no evidence on Wikipedia in the category system that this event is not rare. Unless someone has credible proof otherwise, this is the most notable train murder in Canada that has to date been recorded in Wikipedia. What I am trying to point out is that we should not delete articles "on principle" in area's that lack coverage. When we have better coverage of a subject, then the dross can be trimmed. Doing so beforehand is premature optimisation. John Vandenberg 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Murders are not rare in Canada, sadly. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The standard is multiple reports in non-trivial sources. Google news has 21 reports, including at CBC and CTV, Canada's national networks. That easily passes this standard. semper fictilis 12:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Any murder will get local news coverage, which those stories are. By this argument, you are suggesting that every murder committed deserves an article. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. No, the coverage is national. And I make no suggestion that every murder deserves an article, only that this article about this murder doesn't deserve deletion. semper fictilis 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, they are both local stories. While CTV and CBC are national networks, those articles are both restricted to the local affiliates - CBC Toronto and CTV Toronto. They are not national stories. Incidentally, your google search is already down to 13 hits from 21, just to suggest how trivial this story is in the grand scheme of things. Resolute 00:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Multiple independent etc etc is only a starting point, not the be-all and end-all. I can find over a thousand sources, including the BBC, the Sun and MSN News, about a Sudanese man who had sex with goats - that doesn't mean he warrants an article - iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Write up the article about that Sudanese man and we'll see. :-) semper fictilis 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. No, the coverage is national. And I make no suggestion that every murder deserves an article, only that this article about this murder doesn't deserve deletion. semper fictilis 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Any murder will get local news coverage, which those stories are. By this argument, you are suggesting that every murder committed deserves an article. Resolute 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This is a textbook example of recentism. In 5 years, no one will remember this except the murderer and the friends and family of the victim. One or two sentences in the Toronto Transit Commission article would be sufficient. Indefatigable 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- How do you know that this event doesnt spark reform in the TTC? It already looks like it might. If it does, this event will be referred to as the cause. If not, someone can delete it in the next few years when the coverage clearly indicates this was a minor footnote in the transportation history of Canada. Why the mad panic to delete the article after 10 days? John Vandenberg 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except that the convention in Wikipedia is the reverse, that is, only to create and maintain an article is there is substantial reason to believe that something is of lasting encyclopedic value, rather than an ephemeral news story. This is an encyclopedia, not a news roundup; articles here are at least theoretically of permanent interest. There's plenty of time to create an article when it becomes clear that one is warranted, which is not yet the case. --MCB 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are people that work that way, but the growth of Wikipedia has been due to people creating stub articles on anything that interests them, and the content being merged and improved as required until it is finally encyclopedic. Consistently deleting useful material on an undeveloped theme because it isnt clearly encyclopedic makes it more difficult for amateurs to develop a theme sufficiently in their free time and to be able to write an encyclopedic piece. I would have written a wikinews piece instead of this, but just because this contribution was given to wikipedia instead of wikinews doesnt make it any less desirable to keep. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. John Vandenberg 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. Resolute 13:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- There are people that work that way, but the growth of Wikipedia has been due to people creating stub articles on anything that interests them, and the content being merged and improved as required until it is finally encyclopedic. Consistently deleting useful material on an undeveloped theme because it isnt clearly encyclopedic makes it more difficult for amateurs to develop a theme sufficiently in their free time and to be able to write an encyclopedic piece. I would have written a wikinews piece instead of this, but just because this contribution was given to wikipedia instead of wikinews doesnt make it any less desirable to keep. That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. John Vandenberg 05:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except that the convention in Wikipedia is the reverse, that is, only to create and maintain an article is there is substantial reason to believe that something is of lasting encyclopedic value, rather than an ephemeral news story. This is an encyclopedia, not a news roundup; articles here are at least theoretically of permanent interest. There's plenty of time to create an article when it becomes clear that one is warranted, which is not yet the case. --MCB 04:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if someone can add references to the article; otherwise delete --ALL IN (u t c m l) 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've added four refs. John Vandenberg 22:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This isn't wikinews. Agent 86 18:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
