Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Emily Sander

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 --JForget 02:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Emily Sander

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Emily Sander
Articles for deletion/Murder of Emily Sander
Murder of Emily Sander (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a news report. This murder has been resolved. Murders happen every day, they do not belong on here. Metal Head (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment It recieved information because of the killer fleeing to Mexico. Other than that, it is just a murder. Murders happen every day. Each murder does not deserve it's own page. It's now old news. If anything, make a page over the killer. The Murder of Emily Sander is a headline for a news story, not a title for an encyclopedia entry.Metal Head (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - we just had this conversation, last month. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, we did have this conversation, and was it you who said that it would get deleted after it died down? Either way. It is still just a murder. The murder was resolved, the murderer has been caught. It is no longer notable.A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. If anything, this article needs re-written to either be about Emily Sander and possibly an article about her killer. Her murder is not encyclopedia worthy.Metal Head (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and perhaps speedy close since we just discussed this. There's plenty of information on this case for an encyclopedia article, and there are plenty of independent reliable sources with substantial coverage. This clearly satisfies WP:N. — brighterorange (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for no real deletion rationale. How is a murder "resolved"? Has this already gone to trial? Is he already guilty? Does the fact that something doesn't get a hit in recent news not make it notable? --SmashvilleBONK! 20:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep this doesn't look like a news article at all. News articles are written in the now, referring to recent events, and not revised as events change - rather, new news articles are written when there's new stuff to add, usually trying to quickly summarize all the old articles then giving the news. This article provides encyclopedic (unified, all in one article) coverage of a topic that spanned many news articles, and is still ongoing. We can cover recent events in an encyclopedic style, and doing so is useful. --W.marsh 22:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep While I originally supported deletion in the first AfD, the consensus at the conclusion of the last AfD was for the article to be kept. While the suspect has been captured, he has not been put to trial and there is therefore no "resolution" to this murder. Until all the facts come out at trial and the jury makes a decision, there's really no way to know whether or not this murder will cease to be notable or maintain its notability (and yes, I feel that notability CAN be temporary if the subject's notability was created simply by there being a massive amount of media coverage over a very short period of time, as was the case with this subject). will381796 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The case is unresolved (before the courts). The "secret other life" of the deceased means it is more than just another murder. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
comment Secret other life? There are PLENTY of nude internet models out there, many of which I'm sure keep their profession a secret. To say that she is notable because of this "secret other life" is not a good argument. We have notability tests for pornographic actors which she fails. She is currently notable ONLY because of the massive media coverage of her death (and yes, there are still recent stories on her death). will381796 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and perhaps Move back to Emily Sander. Received huge media coverage, centered more on the victim than the perpetrator. --DachannienTalkContrib 08:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • comment The subject is only notable as a result of the event (her death). Hence the reason why the article was moved in the first place. will381796 (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (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.