Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Horton

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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Horton

I am sorry to hear of this young lady's death. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and "subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives". There is no wider or profound significance to this apparent murder. Therefore, delete. Sliggy 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I know that her murder was tragic and recent but there are better places for an online memorial than a reference site. -- (aeropagitica)  15:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Question: is there a specific rule on when crime victims are "notable" and when they're not? I could see articles like this becoming a problem. --Mareino 15:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some people who met violent deaths are notable for other reasons, eg Jean-Paul Marat and Jesus. There's no hard and fast rule (AFAIK), but simply being the victim of a murder isn't notable in itself. So Delete. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Question: If "subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives", why do we have (for example) an article on Elizabeth Stride, who was an unknown prostitute at the time of her death? (Question posed by Jcuk) Sliggy 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Elizabeth Stride would be a candidate for merging into the Jack the Ripper article, IMHO, but Jack attracts obsessives and that page would grow huge unless his victims were split out. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Elizabeth Stride's significance (or "claim to fame" to quote the policy) resides in her being a victim of Jack the Ripper, in my opinion. Sliggy 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Follow up question are victims of serial killers more notable? is there actually a criteria that says this murder victim is more notable than that one? Jcuk 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have both quoted, and referred to, agreed policy. If you want to bring Elizabeth Stride to AfD then please do - I might agree that deletion is the best course of action. I'd be interested in your argument: I try to assess the merits of each case from a neutral perspective.

Please state any wider or profound significance of this apparent murder, or in other words her "claim to fame". Thanks. Sliggy 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Developing story. -- JJay 03:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - just cos it's developing doesn't make her death notable. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Tragic, but being a murder victims does not make a person an encyclopedic subject for an article unfortunately. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Of course tragic, but in the wider scheme of things (sorry to say) non notable. --kingboyk 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article can return if the murder becomes notable. --Ajdz 05:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial and licence incompatibility means we cannot transwiki to Wikinews. Stifle 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Eusebeus 18:18, 9 January 2006 (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.