Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Danielle Jones

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. DES ^(talk) 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Danielle Jones

Murder of Danielle Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

yet another non-notable child murder. A blow-by-blow trial report and little more. We are not a new archive. -Doc^g 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This sort of thing belongs at Wikinews. Wikipedia should be for subjects which have lasting impact. Riana ⁂ 14:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that the case was being discussed by Brookman 3 years later (and by Jewkes 2 years later) is evidence of lasting impact. Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete We're still not a newspaper. /Blaxthos 15:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ... and this is, again, not a newspaper article. Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Again there are individual features. The body was not found, but her uncle--who had two previous sex-related crimes--was convicted, & it was upheld on appeal. BBC sources, so there will be others. The article discusses the legal aspect too. DGG 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This has multiple sources and is well known in the uk for being a murder secured on the use of mobile phone evidence.--Lucy-marie 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per policy WP:NOT and per essay WP:NOTNEWS. Not every news story is encyclopedic. It must have a larger effect on society. Edison 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment how would you define effect on society? and isn't that subjective and POV?--Lucy-marie 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a news story. It is an encyclopaedia article about a murder case — one that is presented in books about murder cases as a specific example (both by Brookman and by Jewkes). Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Fairly high-profile murder case. Britain has few murders, and murders such as this are neither non-notable nor unencyclopaedic as the nominator appears to believe. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep featured prominently on crimewatch, which is the biggest place for crime stories in the UK.[1] --h2g2bob (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Crimewatch is a channel that specialises in current police appeals for help. It is not a commentary programme and inclusion in it does not indicate that the case is of more than passing interest. Tell me it was a feature on Newsnight or Panorama and that would be different.--Doc^g 08:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
    • clarification Crimewatch is not a channel in the uk it is a T.V show screened approximatly once a month featuring high profile unsolved crimes.--Lucy-marie 08:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, quite right. My point still stands - although not necessarily high profile ones.--Doc^g 10:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Wikinews exists for this purpose. Resolute 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikinews is not an encyclopaedia. This is not a news article. It is an encyclopaedia article giving (some of) the history and impact of a murder case. Uncle G 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As pointed out above, the fact that the case was written about in books 3 years afterwards entirely shoots down that argument. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete on the basis that we're not a mere archive of newspaper reports. --Tony Sidaway 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We are, however, an encyclopaedia, and this is an encyclopaedia article. Given that it isn't actually a newspaper report in the first place, your argument thus has no rational basis. Uncle G 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

    Actually I think you'd done excellent work on this. I'll withdraw for now and may change my opinion. --22:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• keep is encyclopedic and notable for a number of reasons: 1) It a rare example where in Britain a murder was prosecuted without a body 2) the case has been extensively covered in books and other content 3) It was a noteworthy early case where cell phone technology was highly relevant to the verdict. JoshuaZ 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Highly notable the article has now been expanded new sources are in the form of published books by indipendent third parties. This by far and away satisfies notability criteria.--Jjamesj 07:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A blow-by-blow account of a murder trial does not an encyclopedia article make. Yes, this case is unusual in that no body was found, but it is not unique, and the article itself fails to make an assertion as to why this specific murder and subsequent trial stands out amongst many others in UK law. Without such, this is just a news story which fails the policy WP:NOT and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Zunaid©® 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does. Please read the article more thoroughly. You appear to have read the "Murder trial" section of the article and not read anything else. Uncle G 09:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've read the whole article, including the "aftermath" section more closely. There still isn't enough to convince me that this is encyclopedia-worthy. The use of text messaging analysis could be borne out of this case (quoting the newspaper headline), but then that is the ONLY unique aspect of the case for me. The coverage of the article therefore has to shift to focus on this one aspect. I don't think there are enough sources or further information to flesh out an encyclopedia article on this aspect, so for now my !vote stands. Zunaid©® 09:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT. It's not that uncommon for someone to be convicted of murder without a body being found, as corpus delict doesn't require a body. A brief mention in a book doesn't confer notability on this case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, it is pretty rare. -- Necrothesp 12:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Uncle G's analysis pointing out that this murder is more notable than a mere news event. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Make the necessary clean up for this article. Thanks LILVOKA 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources are obviously present to illustrate notability. Everyking 05:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep a high amount of sources (especially BBC News), comprehensive, well-written, I see no reason to delete this. I don't believe that WP:NOT prohibits articles like this one, they're definitely encyclopaedic. SalaSkan 12:27, 14 June 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.