Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic

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 no consensus, default to keep. I recommend engaging with the editor to assuage any BLP concerns. Neil ╦ 10:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Mihaljevic

Amy Mihaljevic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
see also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic
see also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic

Article about a long-unsolved crime. Article apparently is being used by a single-purpose account to promote his book on the subject (citing himself as a source). Multiple WP:BLP issues caused by the repeated outing of suspects, based on apparently leaked police material. Videmus Omnia Talk 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Nice. WP:OR, WP:COI, and WP:BLP, all in one neat little package. - TexasAndroid 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a bit of a mess at present and I agree that it should be deleted unless it can be more extensively sourced. The biographies of living persons (BLP) problems are pretty serious and also lend weight to deletion. --Tony Sidaway 16:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Statement by Videmus Ommia is bordering on libel. While I did initiate the page, it was not done to promote a regional book but to provide updated information on a tragic unsolved murder that has the potential to be solved if the right person finds the information. There have been several other people who have contributed information on this page if you check its history. Further, Videmus Omnia's involvement in this issue is verging on harassment. And his insistence on deleting an article that can only help bring about justice is just strange. Take out all references to the book if you truly believe there is a conflict of interest, here. But don't impede an investigation out of spite. There is historic interest in this article. It references other articles that have not been written by me. The above editor's claims are incorrect and damaging.-James Renner —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRenner (talk • contribs)
    • Comment the above unsigned statement "borders on" a violation of the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No legal threats.Edison 19:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - This is a subject concerning public figures, so it is not Libel and slander to accuse an author of having a conflict of interest, especially if it appears to be true. Bearian 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Move. This was as big of a news story at the time as the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping (obviously with a much more tragic outcome). The article is well-sourced, and deleting it would be a patent endorsement of recentism. I understand the BLP and COI concerns, but violations can be reverted and the misbehavior of editors dealt with through appropriate chanels. IronGargoyle 16:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep author did write a book and a news story on the matter, but I don't see how a journalist sharing his files with Wikipedia can be a COI if we accept the published sources meet WP:RS, which they do. WP:RS has a section on citing reliable sources you wrote, it IS ALLOWED (see WP:COS and WP:SPS). -Nard 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'll grant that the crime is notable. What's got me pushing for deletion now is the serious BLP issue of discussing criminal suspects without multiple, reliable sources per WP:V and WP:BLP. If the article is kept, the history (and the talk page history) will have to be oversighted. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This isn't a BLP issue, because he didn't write bios of the suspects - if he did, that would be a BLP issue. This issue is the content of this article. Making a BLP wasn't called for. BlueSapphires 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This is a BLP issue. Naming people suspects in a murder case most definitely is a BLP problem, no matter where they are so named. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and weak Keep - (EC) it's icky. Seems like the BLP and OR stuff can be tidied up and then it becomes the sort of encyclopedic material that wikipedia excels at....the stuff that can't really go into a regular encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The crime may be notable (personally, I can't see that it's more notable than any other unsolved murder), but there's no evidence that the victim is. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to assist in the solving of crimes. Deor 18:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Depends on how old you are and if you live in the United States. It was bigger than the Amber case at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSapphires (talk • contribs)
  • Delete The article needs oversight to remove names of "suspects" per WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not a crimeblog or an archive of murders or a newspaper. If the article is kept, it should be renamed "Amy Mihaljevic murder case"" or some title descriptive of the case, because it is not really a biography of the girl.The individual is notable only for the coverage of the crime, and does not satisfy WP:BIO. It is not clear how the sad, tragic and brutal crime had an enduring effect sufficient to justify a Wikipedia article, such as a "Megan's law" or an "Amber alert," although it would be satisfying if it helped to catch her killer. That coverage does not appear to have extended much beyond Cleveland and a book by the creator of the Wikipedia article. Edison 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with this article. It was notable in the media at the time, and started organizations that are committed to protecting young children from criminals and solving crimes. - Cyborg Ninja 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What about the WP:BLP issues with the alleged "suspects"? Videmus Omnia Talk 01:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
      • That can be handled. If necessary the article can be wiped clean. The author needs some wiki-education, not having everything deleted. -Nard 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS - No historic notability is established for these missing kids, unless they're exceptions like Amber Hagerman. They're all known for just one event and that event was caused by no action of their own. I hope I'm not too insensitive, but WP is not a missing kids database. Corpx 01:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This case was a huge deal in Northeast Ohio in the late 1980s and well into the 1990s. Although it is no longer much of a current story, this article should not suffer due to recentism. Also, to address the bit by Edison, that "the individual is notable only for the coverage of the crime." Well, yeah... exactly! All it takes is one event in life to make someone or something notable. Are you saying this girl had to have a resume of notability prior to her murder in order to pass the notability test on Wikipedia even though her murder was, without a doubt, extremely(!) notable? As a last resort, I would even support a possible move to something like: Murder of Amy Mihaljevic. Bat ears 02:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and Wikipedia is also not a directory of missing children, nor is it a crime log. Also noting the WP:BLP issues regarding suspects constantly being inserted, then removed and oversighted. --Coredesat 05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as it appears to be a notable subject (a book and many stories were written about her), but the COI and slandering of suspects leads me to conclude that it needs to be protected if it is kept. Bearian 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The murder was notable in the US in the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was on national television, everyone heard about it (I did on the other side of the country), scads of articles were written about it, and it is still well known in the mid-west. Moreover this AFD was a punative multi-modal attack on the James Renner, by Videmus Omnia, after Renner disagreed with him about an image deletion - disagreeing with Mr. Omnia about an image deletion seems to make in inordinately agnry. Videmus Omnia created deletions (full of Wiki-rule violations that Renner probably knows nothing about, on the following boards: BLP, COI, IFD and here. He might as well have noted it to the FBI, CIA, Interpol and to the Pope. What an unnecessary fiasco and how sad for Mr. Renner, who only needed some coaching and guidance, not a bunch of name-calling.BlueSapphires 06:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Original explanation of AfD is unnecessarily harsh towards User:JamesRenner, who is most certainly not an SPA. While there are definitely BLP, COI, and OR issues, they can easily be cleaned up by experienced editors (by removing possible libel against suspects, having editors other than JamesRenner have a look at it, and providing reliable and verifiable sources). This is a notable event which just needs some work done. Wholesale deletion never solved anything. --clpo13(talk) 09:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep and rename so that it is not a bio article. Since when is the violation of rules by some of an article's content a reason for deletion? Remove the suspects information (information like that is always shakey for a Wikipedia article) and add sourced information the the possible legislation or other legal impact this case has had. CaveatLectorTalk 19:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are sources on the case that have nothing to do with James Renner: September 30, 2001 Las Vegas Review-Journal; Morning Journal 08/18/2006. Renner's book has also been getting a fair amount of press: Akron Beacon Journal, November, 2006;Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Jun 10, 2007. Finally the big article that is used as a reference in the current article version mentions Renner's book but isn't based on it: June 24, 2007 Cleveland Plain Dealer. Clearly notable case, and someone deceased so long is not a WP:BLP concern. Yes, naming suspects would be a BLP concern, so we shouldn't name suspects until they've been named by more than just Renner's book. We can say that Renner's book names suspects, but we should not do the naming. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    Side comment - can we try to keep this about the article, and not the personal issues between the article writer and the deletion nominator? For what it's worth, yeah, they probably both went over the top, but one should be given a lot of slack for being pretty new, and the other for amazing contributions in other areas. Peace, folks, you're both good people. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep a notable case. The BLP issues regarding the suspects can be dealt with - we don't delete an article because it is a target for vandals and we don't delete an article because someone insists on inserting BLP stuff. Thats what a whatchlist is for. ViridaeTalk 00:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per AnonEMouse, highly notable as indicated by the mass of third party sources about the subject. RFerreira 01:34, 30 July 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.