Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jana Shearer

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 - opinions in the debate were split. There are ample secondary sources, see here, so there are no policy grounds to over-ride the lack of consensus to delete. It is relatively early in the event and a fresh debate, when matters have run their course, seems in order. TerriersFan (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Jana Shearer

I'm just not sure this is worth an article. Another murder, another Wikipedia article. But does the murder have any long-term notability outwith WP:NOT#NEWS? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Totally offtopic, but the time I'm noticing above is 11:11, on 11/1/08. Now if that's not kinda weird...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, gruesome murders happen all the time, unfortunately. This one is not especially notable on that front. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
• RETAIN As well as the entry on Cannibalism, there is one on [[1]] and I came to this article looking for a more or less authoritative short piece of information about McCuin after reading via Drudge Report how PETA had amusingly suggested he be placed on a special vegetarian diet (as part of a publicity stunt, I presume). Cannibalism is also of perenial fascination for many (c.f. Hannibal The Cannibal etc). As a newbie I may be ignorant of certain rules but to me the sheer vigour of Wikipedia lies in it as a pretty reliable source on anything of note I want to look up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.244.183 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well, for one thing, I'm not certain that any actual cannibalism took place in this case. He tried to cook parts of her body but I haven't heard anything yet suggesting that he actually tried to eat parts of her body.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Though this may be somewhat different than a "typical" murder, making an article is the first-on-the-block syndrome at work. If it's still on CNN and Fox next month, maybe it can come back. Mandsford (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This murder has attracted immense attention in Texas, and a google news search reveals approximately 1000 news articles. It is not Wikipedia's job to determine if the event itself is notable, the Texan community, the Midwest, and the news media has clearly placed the importance of this murder head and shoulder above the rest. The subject clearly exceeds all notability guidelines. EgraS (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• It's not really "1000 news articles". I'll concede that a lot of newspapers may have reprinted the articles written, but that's true of a lot of news. Whether it will be big news next week, next month or next year is another matter. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's exactly it. Different newspapers repeat the same stories... that's a fact.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Retain for a month or so, is what I think. At that point, if it's disappeared from CNN, then delete it. Up until then, as many people will come here to learn about it as will go to CNN, and it would be a disservice to remove it before they do. Cougar Draven (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete another murder in the news. not very notable. Unlikely to go much further, and again, just news. Reywas92^Talk 04:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is as mentioned very much more than the usual murder. There's every reason to thin here will be continuing coverage. for one thing, the criminal will eventually be tried. DGG (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As sad as it is, I don't see anything incredibly unusual or notable about the case. If more findings were to arise in the next few months, I would agree with recreating it. Pinkadelica (talk) 10:23, 17 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.