Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Entwistle

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 of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Entwistle, Rachel Entwistle, Lillian Entwistle

An inconsequential murder that made headlines half a year ago. Not particularly iconic or gruesome or anything; the case is quite forgotten now. Dr Zak 16:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The articles on Rachel and Lilian were nominated for deletion in February. It was argued then that they should be kept because it was a major story. Well, it was a major story then, but now the hubbub has died down. Dr Zak 16:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, with the exception of the baby article Lillian Entwistle. Definitely notable with huge press coverage (not being in the headlines now doesn't change that). Another alternative would be a single article on the murders and merge/redirect them all into it. - Motor (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I'd keep the articles for historical reasons. Just because the murder case hasn't been talked about for awhile, doesn't mean it is forgotten. Neil Entwistle hasn't even had a major trial yet, as far as I know. - Fanficgurl (talk) 2:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Motor. This case is hardly inconsequential; a family was torn apart and a man is up for trial on charges of murder. Yes, the case isn't making headlines now, but the "hubbub" is likey to begin when his trial begins. — EagleOne\^Talk 18:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into one article maybe? ~ trialsanderrors 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's still a major story, and these article's still should stay. Notability doesn't disappear. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep newsworthiness is not the criteria. These will be "newsy" again during the trial. Just like the long litany of articles about every executed person in the US during the last few years. Their fleeting fame has now gone but there is some value to the proposition that someone is notable if the state cares so little/so much about that person it puts them to death. If the perps stay, I suppose in fairness the victims should as well. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree that when trial comes around new facts will emerge and the mystery factor combined with the (transatlantic) family story will make the the story an international curiosity. For that reason it should be kept in as a point of reference Dick G 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For reasons above. Certainly more notable than porn props "stars". CalJW 21:36, 8 June 2006 (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.