Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphabet murders

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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by blocked user. W.marsh 01:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet murders

Alphabet murders (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• delete as non-notable.Gayunicorn 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — Gayunicorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep per great deal of media coverage, Discovery Channel special, and movie in production. Appears to be bad faith nom, given nominating editor's talk page comments against including articles "glorifying crimes" and his/her previous abortive nomination attempt, in which the stated reason was that the page glorified a crime. Sarcasticidealist 23:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple references; one of the most famous cases ever (I've heard of it 4000 miles & 30 years away); subject of a movie for god's sake. What more do you need for it to be notable? — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Good faith & all that but this recent post by the nominator makes me question their understanding of WP:N — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep per sources [1], and especially because the story is being turned into a major film. Clearly this is something remembered 30+ years after the fact, and meets the "historical importance" clauses of WP:NOTNEWS. --W.marsh 01:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - clearly and verifiably notable topic, article includes references, and is wikified. No reason to suggest this should be deleted. Nihiltres^(t.l) 01:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I created the article for WP:AFC so I obviously think it's notable enough to keep. I just wanted to point out that this nomination is purposely disruptive editing by a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked Tweety21, who has a grudge against me. That's why the nomination argument is virtually non-existent. Precious Roy 01:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nominator is now indefinitely blocked, so I wouldn't worry about it. Chick Bowen 01:39, 28 September 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.