Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Wilberger (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brooke Wilberger

Delete As sad as her story is, it isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a repository of unsolved murder cases. Article was deleted before, so I nominated it for a speedy delete, but apparently this version is sufficiently different to not warrant a speedy delete. It still warrants a delete as would any article about her in my opinion. Caerwine 00:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into Missing white woman syndrome. 147.70.242.21 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The original count was as much concerned with the quality of the article as the notability of the subject. I recreated the article after the original deletion, and this was speedied per the original deletion. I've just restored this and hybridized this with the other created article. Also, it should be said that she is notable in the Pacific Northwest, whether deserving or not. Sarge Baldy 01:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Stifle 09:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe weak merge. Going by the Missing white woman syndrome article, it looks like every murdered white woman gets her own page. --StuffOfInterest 13:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There do seem to be a lot of MWWs on Wikipedia, though it begs the question whether this is a form of Wikipedia systemic bias (against missing American non-whites and men and non-American missing women), or whether we're just doing our duty by noting that the media found someone notable. That said, AfD isn't a legal system and I personally don't believe precedent is a particularly strong argument. --Last Malthusian 13:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Crime victims generally must pass the bar of having their case set precedent in real life or affect changes in the real world. (BTW, I think that MWW are particularly represented when college students. College co-ed victims are a special topic, white or non-white, as various serial killer cases will show. This may be a hangover from the anxiety of allowing women into college.) Because of the bar, the woman in Georgia who ran away and turned up in New Mexico might well make it, as she has blazed a trail by getting arrested and sued by her vindictive town for police resources (when she didn't report herself missing), but few others do. Geogre 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info #4.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: as usual I agree with Geogre, but it seems likely that if convicted Joel Courtney will merit an article (19 murders is more than Jack the Ripper after all), so it's likely this information will merit inclusion in that article.Can we file this in the Pending tray? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Exactly right, Zat Guy: we usually put a redirect from victims to their (alas, more known) killers and merge, if there is material to merge. It's ghoulish, but it is precedent in wider media, and we are constrained to follow them (mainly because one killer will have multiple victims, and it's easier to talk about all the victims in one spot than to say the same thing about a criminal in multiple spots). Geogre 17:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, so now I have to vote keep because this contains substantive and verifiable information which pertains to a case which on present evidence is notable but which, as yet, can't be merged to the alleged perp because guilt has not yet been established - and if guilt is established for this case alone the answer will be delete since single murders are almost certainly not notable. Is that not the case? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - verified, encyclopaedic, notable, interesting. All that an encyclopaedia is about. Zordrac 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very notable in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, articles don't need massive national or global appeal to appear on Wikipedia do they? The article is verifiable and contains useful information for people interested in Wilberger, which again is what an encyclopedia is all about. Believing "missing white women" are overrepresented in the media or on wikipedia is not a reason to delete an encyclopedic article. --Fxer 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, an encyclopedia article that reasonable numbers of people will want to look up. Kappa 04:02, 6 December 2005 (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.