Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Hannah Foster

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 No consensus, and the article will therefore be kept by default. DES (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Hannah Foster

Murder of Hannah Foster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

As below. We're not a newpaper. And if anyone cares you could start on Category:British murder victims and Category:Murder victims by nationality fo more unencyclopedic stuff (not that they are ALL non-encyclopedic) -Docg 15:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There are so many murders, it really doesn't make sense for WP to report on all of them. See WP:NOTNEWS. YechielMan 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Judged individually, this one has sources in BBC, the Scotsman, and Hindustani Times --the murderer fled to India. Article needed updating as he had not yet been tried in 2006. Google News now shows over 100 additional sources, though they are not all really independent of each other. There was apparently great interest in this case in India, & it was covered by national news sources there. Interesting that by chance it was nominated just as more sources became available--shows continuing interest, which is a criterion. Old crime stories should be checked for developments before being nominated--actually, all articles should be checked before being nominated. DGG 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It was. It makes a great news story. Pity we're an encyclopedia. Wikinews perhaps?--Docg 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Doc, what exactly are your criteria for which murders to include? Mine is simple: two national media sources, and we will have as many articles as attract major coverage. Not paper, after all. Does not detract from the seriousness of the encyclopedia; it's not as if we were covering shop-lifting. DGG 17:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedians don't establish notability by their subjective votes, the media does in its coverage. If it gets two or three stories in independent media outlets, its notable. We aren't covering the >100,000 murders every year, just the ones that media outlets deem interesting enough to cover. Thats less than a hundred a year. Fewer than the number of sports people that get automatic coverage by joining a major team each year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Due top the mulitple sources the international aspect of the crime and that extardition law is being virtually pioneered between India and Britain by this case.--Lucy-marie 19:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. We need a bit more than these subjective measures of "notability" here. The article in its present form is just a news story and thus violates What Wikipedia is not. It may be possible to create a Wikipedia article on this murder, but this isn't it, and the "keep" opinions don't seem to demonstrate a realistic possibility that it could be developed into one. --Tony Sidaway 20:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

comment what in your opinion counts as a reliable indipendant source? The case will last in notability due to the international aspectm, the fact that extradition law is being heavily ironed out by this case and wiki is not an American only entity it must contain articles from all round the world.--Lucy-marie 21:45, 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 21:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

comment At some point every encyclopedia article must have been news at some time to gain any form of attention.--Lucy-marie 21:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but the problem here is that it's written like a news article.--Svetovid 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
AfD is not to be used to delete articles because you don't like the writing style, but only because you don't think the subject is worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp 15:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic.--Svetovid 21:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
comment If the way the article is written is the problem then it needs a clean up not deleting.--Lucy-marie 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. High-profile murder case in a country in which (thank God) murder is still a pretty rare and newsworthy event. -- Necrothesp 22:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO, clearly falls under the news reports. No evidence of any mid or long term significance. One Night In Hackney303 07:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Wikinews exists for this purpose. Resolute 13:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary, and per Resolute (great formulation of the phrase!), other than the brief bursts of news surrounding the murder and stages of the case, this differs little from the many other murders. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

comment The case has been circulationg for a few years now so it is more than temeperary, temprary is a few weeks.--Lucy-marie 07:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

  • keep This case has a significant international aspect with the testing of extradition laws between India and Britian. This case may lead to the change or modification of extradition laws betwwen the two countiies, as a direct result of the events in this case.--Jjamesj 08:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my arguments on the old version and archived talk page of WP:NOTNEWS. The article fails to cite any evidence to indicate that there is a unique aspect to this case, and WP is not a news archive. Zunaid©® 09:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep A transnational crime event is probably as notable as cases like the disappearance of Maddie McCann, it needs cleanup though, and details of the investigation should be found. The extraditional implications may be significant too.--Kylohk 16:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
probably, maybe, could be found :- evidence?--Docg 16:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per DGG. --JJay 20:55, 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.