Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanel Petro-Nixon

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 keep: as this article cites significant coverage of its subject in multiple, third party reliable sources in Chanel_Petro-Nixon#External_links, this person is presumed to be notable per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. However, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does not actually furnish an independant rationale for deletion. The only remaining argument for deletion is the purely subjective assertion that this person is non-notable, which fails to overcome the presumption of notability conferred by the general notability guideline as previously described. John254 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Result modified by DRV to no consensus in light of non-admin closure. Xoloz 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chanel Petro-Nixon

Chanel Petro-Nixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.

This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:

1. There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
2. Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
3. I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic problems;
4. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.

And please try to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated — remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also, MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has stated that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so — while it shouldn't affect your decision — bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm the creator of this work so, unless Chanel's family "weighs-in" and says otherwise, I vote to keep this.--MurderWatcher1 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and notability seems strained to non-existent. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The work User:MurderWatcher1 has put into this is noted and appreciated by me and others. Nevertheless, this article is just about a woman who was murdered - a statistic, if you like. The world/country/state was unaware that she lived in the first place; her death seems to have made temporary headlines and then faded from view; the fate of her killer is of but passing interest; the world has moved on without her. Shocking, harsh judgment from me, and I know I sound heartless. But Wikipedia is not a memorial; Wikipedia is not a random collation of trivia and most murder victims in this world are non-notable - they're just victims of this world. Without something to make a victim stand out from the hundreds upon hundreds of US/worldwide murder victims each year (eponymous law, weeks/months of coverage of the disappearance, drama/documentary for a non-minority channel being made, etc) then this is another NN, with WP:BLP concerns for their family to be considered too. Original research on the "impact" of the killing must be ignored. This is an encyclopaedia. For transparency, iridescent and I have discussed this in the past and directly before I commented; I previously agreed with this AfD and spoke about it on the WP:ANI discussion which was started to try to avoid offending the author before this came to AfD; nevertheless, I have re-read the article and this AfD before posting and my views have not changed/have been reinforced. This same text appears elsewhere; this is because it applies elsewhere too and this is convenient for me. No summary judgement has been made. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a memorial applies in this instance. There is nothing about this particular murder that distinguishes it from others. Sad though that may be. -- Whpq 20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and edit Looking at the article, there is some distinctive features besides the general age of the victim. This is a case where the question has been raised publicly by prominent public figures about the degree of public and police attention to the murder of people of different races--and widely reported in major news sources. The emphasis on the article on details of crimes, the attitude involved in a sentence that "There was, however, no evidence of any sexual assault, torture or any marks found on Chanel's body. ", and the extensive content about identifying marks that might aid the investigation indicate a degree of soapboxing. But the subject is notable nevertheless, and should be judged on its own distinctive merits independently of the other contributions or motivation of the author. Of the 500 murders or so in NYC, some are notable--the argument that we cant include 500 should not be used to say that we can't include the notable ones that have the most public attention for particular reasons. DGG (talk) 23:48, 19 October 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.