Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Dean Shillingsworth

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. Secret ^account 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Dean Shillingsworth

Death of Dean Shillingsworth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

OK, so a mother allegedly shakes her baby to death and disposes of him in a trunk. Naturally, some outrage flares up briefly and then subsides, and the local paper (Sydney being just 34 mi from where the corpus delicti was found), as one might expect, covers the matter. All well and good, but, not to be flippant about this tragedy, Where's the beef? Why exactly should an encyclopedia maintain an article on this child's murder, when infanticide is an all-too-routine occurrence? Is there some truly major significance to the event, some lasting impact on culture or laws? Was the baby of high or noble birth? Will we remember the incident in ten or even two years' time? Probably "no" to all these questions. Some child murders (eg those Charles Lindbergh Jr., Megan Kanka or the Princes in the Tower) do have a lasting impact or are inherently notable; this one clearly fails the test. Biruitorul (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. What a very sad thing. Very sad. Not encyclopedia though. Belongs, at best, in Wikinews. Keeper | 76 21:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Truly tragic event, but a news story, not an encyclopdiac topic. Xymmax (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the news, Wikipedia is not a memorial. I see no establishment of notability beyond these two. -Verdatum (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic. KnightLago (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikinews. Malinaccier (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This issue had much greater coverage than "the local paper". It was covered across Australia (for example, Perth and Hobart). The story was covered internationally (New Zealand, Slovenia, Hungary etc). Also, the death was very significant in highlighting ongoing difficulties for the Department of Community Services (DOCS) in maintaining the safety of children brought to its attention. DOCS actually returned the boy to his mother just before she allegedly killed the child. Finally, there are many other similar Wikipedia articles that record the death or disappearance of children that have in turn become notable events (Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Louise Woodward, Nixzmary Brown, Lynne Harper, Huang Na, Timothy Wiltsey etc). WWGB (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The key word there is "become". Where is your evidence that this event has become a significant part of the permanent historical record? I can find, for example, the Louise Woodward case recorded in history books and in books that analyse criminal justice. (See pages 290–291 of ISBN 0534629466, for example.) Where are the mentions of this case in history books and books on criminal justice? I cannot find a single one. Where are the non-news sources to demonstrate that this is more than just a news story? If this case has the significance that you claim, where are the analyses of the DOCS pointing out that signifcance? Uncle G (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Follow up - Dean Shillingsworth's death was a major factor in the State Government establishing a Child Protection Commission as reported in this reference. WWGB (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  Question To what level is the notability of the New South Wales DoCS? I'm not sure what baring that has, as notability is not inherited in either direction, but if it's not a notable organization, then influencing it is not a notable act. It doesn't have an article on WP, and I'm in the US, so it's a little bit harder for me to gauge notability of this organization. -Verdatum (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Response - DOCS is a government agency. There is this small WP entry and also DOCS own website. WWGB (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well-known case that has received significant coverage. Given that it occurred in recent months, it is a bit early to argue that it should be deleted on the grounds that it hasn't been written about in books. This seems to be a case of I don't like it. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. I argue for deletion on notability grounds alone. And the way it works is we write about events that have achieved notability; we don't anticipate future notability. Of course some cases may be borderline, and with others (say the Indian Ocean tsunami or the recent Australian election) one knows right away those are notable; but this case is pretty obscure in the overall picture, which is why it's better to delete now and recreate in the future if it becomes apparent some lasting notability applies to it. Biruitorul (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Establishing a Child Protection Commission as per above is already an indication of ongoing notability rather than today's headlines, tomorrow's fish and chips wrapper. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The evidence that Dean Shillingsworth and not Shellay Ward was the major reason for the commission's existence is tenuous. Even if he was, a state-level commission that hasn't yet issued its report and may well come to little is not especially notable. Biruitorul (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for its role in establishing the Commission, as discussed by two users above me. Were it not for that, I'd probably agree that this is a tragic but non-notable event. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Subsequent to the nominator's comment below this: I can see how the source can be read that way, but as I see it, the deaths of both children were responsible. While a Federal-level commission would certainly be more spectacular than a state-level one, a state-level commission is still a highly significant thing, regardless of how cynical the motives in setting it up might have been. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - 1 - Shellay Ward, not Dean Shillingsworth (merely "known" to DOCS), appears to have been the major impetus toward the commission's creation. 2- Even so, that's not especially notable. When two children watched by a bureaucracy die in short order, naturally politicians will feel the heat and set up some pro forma commission to assuage public discontent. If the commission's findings then lead to major reforms, perhaps this subject would be notable, but a state-level (as opposed to Federal) inquiry just doesn't seem to cut it. Biruitorul (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to participate robustly in the debate, but adding expressions such as merely "known" to DOCS is pushing a point of view towards distortion of the truth. One is either "known to DOCS" or "not known to DOCS", there are no other alternatives. Stating "merely known" (emphasis added) seems like an attempt to denigrate a factual and absolute situation. WWGB (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, "merely" known ("known" is all the article said), as are probably scores of children. If, say, a dozen had died in custody this year and spurred the creation of a commission, would all deserve articles? By contrast, we are told three investigations are ongoing into Shellay Ward's death. The point is this is all rather tenuous: Dean Shillingsworth, known to DOCS, played an apparently peripheral role (as it appears Shellay Wood was the real impetus) into the setting up of a state-level commission that might possibly come up with recommendations for tweaking child-care provisions in one Australian state that then may become law. Altogether a fairly routine matter, the sort of thing that happens in democracies year in, year out. Biruitorul (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Recieved huge attention in Australia, international coverage and is clearly going to influence future child protection policy in New South Wales and Australia. Nick mallory (talk) 04:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Do review WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Let's wait for that influence before retaining an article on the matter. Biruitorul (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipdeia is not a news archive, and a flurry of news coverage about a sad case of a child being murdered does not necessarily justify a permanent encyclopedia article. There is no clear evidence that the killing had any lasting influence on society. Come back and resurrect the article if in the future it proves as notable as the killing of the Lindbergh child. See also the essay WP:NOTNEWS and the policy WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete is my view on this one, mainly per Edison. The whole article reads like a news release and would need at least a serious clean-up, and let's not forget that Wikipedia is not a news archive. And while I am assuming good faith, I also agree with Biruitoru that this will not definitely influence any child policy. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - high profile case ... news story over some months - as per Nick mallory and WWGB. Needs clean up but that is not a rationale for deletion. --Matilda ^talk 04:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it is sadly on in a chain of events which if covered will assist the eventual writing of a decent article on the NSW Department of Community Services. That article apparently doesn't exist yet, but that is not an indication that the article shouldn't exist - just that nobody has bothered to do it yet. Garrie 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - first, the article has scant information on DOCS. Second, that an otherwise unencyclopedic article may assist in building a future encyclopedic one is not exactly grounds for retention. Third, as far as I know, no sub-national child services agency has its own Wikipedia page (except, for no apparent reason, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services), so it's highly unlikely DOCS, out of all of them, deserves one. Biruitorul (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment well most NSW Government agencies have articles. It's mainly lack of motivated individuals that stops all NSW Government agencies having articles. Are you really arguing that the New South Wales Department of Community Services does not meet WP:ORG? Garrie 00:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I believe only agencies that meet WP:ORG (which is, after all, a guideline) and have some especially notable aspect about them deserve inclusion. It is to our detriment that DET or DADHC have pages, since they're just random alphabet-soup gravy train dolers-out of taxpayer funds, as is DOCS. And as only one state-level mental health bureaucracy has a page, I don't really see why NSW's deserves one. Biruitorul (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:NOTABILITY --Sharkface217 01:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - do see the section in that policy headlined notability is not temporary - lasting notability is doubtful here, and has certainly not been established sufficiently. Biruitorul (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. But additionally significant as the impetus for the establishment of a new Child Protection Commission. —Moondyne 03:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, was an extremely high profile case, with ramifications beyond the immediate criminal case, and oodles of secondary sources establishing notability as well. Lankiveil (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - "extremely" high profile? Then what was Lindbergh? Really, let's try and keep some perspective. Plus, that it was a factor (a, not the) in the setting up of a state-level commission that might not do much isn't exactly evidence of lasting notability. Biruitorul (talk) 22:48, 18 December 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.