Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson

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 Keep and renamed as Murder of Ebony Simpson Gnangarra 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebony Simpson

Ebony Simpson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A murder victim; her murder is covered in the murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial.--Peta 23:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't think this article is written as a memorial. There are other articles on murder victims. I have heard of the victim rather than the murderer. It is one of the more notable cases.--Golden Wattle talk 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Typically because they otherwise meet WP:BIO.--Peta 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • There are three other children in Category:Murdered Australian children, there are 30 articles in Category:Australian murder victims - people like Janelle Patton and Peter Falconio were not notable before being murdered either.--Golden Wattle talk 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • One could suggest that this is a problem of recentism, there seems to be an article on every notable Australian murder, but rather than covering the crime in a good article there is an article on the victim(s), the criminal and they exist separately as biographies. In my experience on AFD; BIO and NOT are widely applied to victims of crime. Pan Dan make a good suggestion - and it does need to be applied to multiple Australian crime articles. --Peta 00:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Neither this article nor Andrew Garforth are bios. Together they're about the murder and its aftermath. Merge the two and rename as Murder of Ebony Simpson or something like that. Pan Dan 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (or Merge) - this case was front page news at the time. Needs to be on its own or in an article on the case. Agree with Golden Wattle and Pan Dan. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per Pan Dan Garrie 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - was a major news story at the time; requests for expansion is the correct procedure to use here, not an AfD. JRG 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt that good sources can be found or that it can be more than a memorial article. This sad case does not demonstrate notability. The only source which is not a proforma court document is a book which gained very little attention (only 13 Google hits for the book and no Amazon sales rank) and the case itself has almost no Google hits besides blogs or sites echoing the Wikipedia article. If there was coverage in local newspapers at the time of the murder and the trial, then add that to the article, but then compare it to the proposed guideline WP:NOTNEWS. The article about the killer also deserves deletion. Edison 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: 1992 cases are less likely to attract google hits than more recent cases - this was a very major news story for a long period of time - significantly more notable in my view based on coverage particularly by the tabloid press and women's magazines than say the Brian Burke scandal which somebody thinks worthy of an article. WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. I am disappointed that deletion debates focus on what people think might be notable rather than actual independent objective criteria. Ebony Simpson was the subject of many many newspaper and magazine stories. Dating from 1992 most of these are not online. She is still however mentioned from time to time in the newspapers. She is the subject of a book. I have difficulty with comments from people who were too young and/or not in Australia who would be unable to judge the amount of coverage this topic received.If they can't judge on that basis then they need to use the objective criterion provided by WP:Bio is that she meets the notability threshold. Notwithstanding these comments, I accept that as above, the article might be better merged with that of the murderer and discuss the murder and afermath.--Golden Wattle talk 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Edison, it is articles like this that help Wikipedia rise above the lowest common denominator material which occupies a large chunk of the internet. This was really front page news at the time and much more notable than current google hits may indicate.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete a murder victim. She is not otherwise notable. Wiki is not a place for memorial articles.DavidYork71 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment It's not a memorial article. This was a MAJOR news story in Australia in 1992. JRG 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge this and related articles to create one single holistic article on the crime, not multiple articles on the people involved. -- saberwyn 22:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a case where the victim of the crime received much more coverage than the murderer. If celebrities or serial killers get a page, there is no reason this needs deleting. This is not a memorial. This event received national news coverage in 1992 - I know, I live in Sydney Australia and remember it well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boutan (talk • contribs) 11:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep -- meets WP:BIO. Major national news at the time. -- Longhair\talk 21:22, 15 March 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.