Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joanne Nelson

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 delete. Sr13 02:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Joanne Nelson

Murder of Joanne Nelson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Another non-notable murder victim. Unreferenced to boot. No doubt there will have been newspaper coverage at the time - but unless any ongoing significance can be shown please delete. Temporarily newsworthy != permanently encyclopedic. Happy to withdraw this if anyone can show any particular importance or significance. -Doc^g 14:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Neither the victim nor the perp is notable; Wikipedia is not a police blotter archive. Delete. Chromaticity 14:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This sort of thing belongs at Wikinews. Wikipedia should be for subjects which have lasting impact. Riana ⁂ 14:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Please keep nominating these types of articles.--Svetovid 21:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Why keep nominating these articles WIki is not an american entity it is international and should contain a wide range of articles. The mass deletions are unecessary as wiki is not paper based so the number af subjects is unlimited and far less notable individuals have pages such as anybody who has ever been a professional wrestler is that really more notable?--Lucy-marie 22:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. People die every day; needs something special to make it notable. Useight 23:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

comment yes people do but not every murder in the uk makes it in to the news this one did so some form of notability must have been generated. Also wiki is not american so stop applying american standards to non-american articles. Murder rates in the UK are on about 800 a year, compared to the 16500 murdered in America. Murder is lower in the uk the ones which attract media attention are even fewer so saying poeple die every day is true, but every single death is not reported.--Lucy-marie 23:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Media attention does not equal encyclopaedic merit. It only snows 30 days a year in the UK - when it does it is recorded in every newspaper - doesn't mean it is encyclopaedic.--Doc^g 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably would be in an article on "Climate in the UK", but on the flip side of the coin there would be multiple reliable sources beyond the newspaper articles.-- saberwyn 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

commentIn the correct context that would be acceptable and agin you are providing wild examples with no direct baring to anythign just to try and be as extreme as possible. The case must have a form of notability in the first place or the media would not have picked it up and don't all encyclopedia articles have to be news articles to start with to be noticed in the first place?--Lucy-marie 23:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF? The media if fickle and lazy - they report human interest stories about shaggy dogs, lottery winners and the weather. We need to do our own thinking to differentiate between the widely-reported newstory (which goes to wikinews) and the event of lasting social impact - which may be encyclopedic. We are not a newspaper - not an archive of news reports. We are an encyclopedia. --Doc^g 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I still see no way of discounting something from the encyclopedia just because your opinion is it is only a news story and the point still stands all these articles in this entire encyclopedia must have started off as a news story to gain any form of notability. Also your comments regarding the media are in my opinion very narrow minded, would you classify the watergate scandal in the US as one of those stories in the same class as shaggy dogs and lottery winners?--23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are books written about watergate, don't be daft. Of course things that started off as newspaper stories can be encyclopaedic - but not if all they are is newspaper stories - then they are newspaper stories - and WP:NOT a newspaper - try wikinews.--Doc^g 23:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue this does merit inclusion under wiki not being paper so there is no limit on the number of articles. I say we are never going to agree on this as we are poles apart but at least we know where each other stands.--Lucy-marie 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unsourced. Haukur 00:14, 11 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 07:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N#Notability is not temporary. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 11 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.