Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Currie

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. Jinian 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Currie

Chris Currie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Well sourced though the article is, he only became newsworthy by dying and WP:NOT a memorial. One Night In Hackney 06:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree on this one. This site is clearly not a memorial, and is rather an article on a figure of some interest in a notable crime that occurred in New Zealand. There are a wide range of other articles, such as Jessica Bergsten, Holly Jones, Rachel Scott, Anna Wood, Reena Virk, and Elyse Pahler, to name only a few who have become posthumously notable. I don't see why we are singling out this particular case when there are other similar articles already included. The article is well-sourced, and appears to have been widely reported in New Zealand. I don't see any compelling reason to remove it - sometimes, sensational crimes create notable personages of their victims. Their deceased status has no effect on this. --Haemo 06:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not singling out any particular article, I saw this one and saw on the discussion page I wasn't the only person who had concerns about his notability. I don't consider murder victims notable generally speaking, and it is possible to find press coverage for a majority of murder victims. One Night In Hackney 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment "Other articles like this exist" is a problematic keep argument - see WP:POKEMON. But to address Haemo's specific examples - Jessica Bergsten was murdered by a US sports celebrity and the case was the subject of a critically acclaimed documentary. Holly Jones - this article does a poor job of asserting encyclopedic notability, making only a vague implied claim that her murder led to a change in Canadian law. An initial google search shows that there is at least some evidence for this, with at least one Private Member's Bill proposed in her memory[1] - further research needed to see if these changes in the law took hold. Rachel Scott - victim of the Columbine massacre and subject of much religious coverage, including several books, due to the misattributed story involving a religious question asked by the killers. Anna Wood - at centre of Australian moral panic over ecstasy;Reena Virk - article asserts encyclopedic notability but in a vague unsupported way. This seems to be the weakest of this article group; Elyse Pahler - article does not assert encyclopedic notability well - but case is deeply associated with a band which seems to be solidly encyclopedically notable. Bwithh 07:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
sidenote: I have substantially enhanced the Reena Virk article's claims to encyclopedic notability now Bwithh 02:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Abundance of source article indicates this may have been a well-known event in NZ. Realkyhick 06:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The crime may be notable for the manner in which it was executed, the perpetrator is less notable than the incident itself. The news articles focus on the perp or the trial as the principal subjects, and the victim gets trivial mentions. Furthermore, the deceased, god bless his soul, is just a random victim of a wanton act. I agree with nom: Wiki is not a memorial. Furthermore, Wiki is not a crystal ball. Posthumous fame has not yet happened to Currie, unlike for the above victims. Ohconfucius 06:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Tragic, but wikipedia is not a news report archive or a memorial site. The article does not assert encyclopedic notability and, though obviously very serious for those involved, is not even a major news event. Being a widely reported event is not an automatic indication of encyclopedic notability. Newspapers and other news services have coverage criteria which are substantially different from an encyclopedia Bwithh 07:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The documented notoriety of the crime provides notability to the victim. --Kevin Murray 07:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
News notability is not the same as encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive Bwithh 10:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The victim is, sadly for him, totally non-notable. The incident is also non-notable. What is special about it? Did it create a legal precedent? Was it the first incident of this kind in New Zealand? -- RHaworth 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Move top clarify that it's about the case, if it is genuinely considered of legal significance, otherwise delete since Wikipedia is not a directory of homicide cases. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, as the primary author of the article there is probably a conflict of interest in any comments I make. I would like to see the article kept for the reason the crime was at the time prominently reported in the New Zealand media. Of course looking through Wikipedia:Notability (people) I can see it probably fails beyond being featured in multiple non-trivial published works. Evil Monkey - Hello 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-cited and seems noatble enough. No harm is done by keeping it. ~ Flameviper 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Allowing non-encyclopedic material in an encyclopedia harms the reputation and composition of the encyclopedia Bwithh 10:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of wikinews about the event, due to notability within NZ. John Vandenberg 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not a news report archive. That's what Wikinews is for. Wikipedia is separate from Wikinews. They are not the same project. Bwithh 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article still doesn't even contain a claim to encyclopedic notability, let alone a sourced, substantive one Bwithh 10:17, 12 January 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.