Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally Anne Bowman

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 MOVE to Murder of Sally Anne Bowman. There seems to be a clear consensus to merge this into an article about the murder, however such a article does not currently exist. Also there seems to be consensus to merge the Mark Dixie article into the same article on the murder, however the article was not nominated so not all comments reference it. I have therefore moved Sally Anne Bowman article to Murder of Sally Anne Bowman, but I left the Mark Dixie article untouched. I don't disagree with merging the Dixie article, but I suggest that it needs a new discussion where it is explicitly nominated at the start. TigerShark (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sally Anne Bowman

Sally Anne Bowman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unnotable and precedent was set for this type of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Keeling case. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial, and we've long established that people known only for their deaths (see what happened to most of the articles about victims from the Virginia Tech shooting) aren't generally notable. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not the same like Scarlett Keeling. Sally was already known in the fashion industry before her killing, not like Scarlett who wasn't known before her death. The Sally Anne article is written about her life and not just about her death/killing. Mca2001 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Do you have any refs that indicate she was notable that pre-date this crime as she does not fit our level of notability before her death. The truth is Sally wasn't known either. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment.:::If you read the article and check the references, you will see that she was signed on at a modeling agency back in January before her death and she was popular and was thought to be going far. Mca2001 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Be assured I am very familiar with the case and signing onto a model agency and being considered to have talent clearly is not notable by our wikipedia standards. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Mark Dixie. In one way it is tragic that a murderer gets an article here without question whilst his victim's status is dubious. If someone had submitted an article here about Sally Ann a week before her death, it would undoubtedly have been rejected as {{nn-bio}}. Being murdered does not make her notable. (And I live in South Croydon!) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or ...... I understand both points everybody is making here on both sides. Good points too. But if we delete Sally's article, why are we keeping the article on the Mark Dixie person? It seems the murderer is more important to have on Wikipedia than the victim (that's the way this world is). Unfortunately, this isn't the first murder like this and won't be the last. So why don't we delete both. Rivertown (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't oppose that idea. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Although I am more inclusionist on crime articles than some, this imbalance has always bothered me. When you have someone disappear or get found dead, they become the focus of the case, but once the murderer is found, the focus shifts. In the end the coverage ends up being about the investigation or trial. In the case of serial criminals, it definitely makes more sense to cover the multiple crimes in the perp's article. But if no murderer is found, the victim keeps their place. Being a victim, though, isn't about being more deserving of an article, otherwise we'd fill up with WP:MEMORIALs right quick. So I think being a murderer/criminal does have rationale for having an article that being a victim does not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete sad, yes, notable, no.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 06:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge? It seems to me that although the murder case is notable, the people behind the event (the murderer Mark Dixie and the victim Sally Anne Bowman) are not. Therefor, shouldn't both articles be merged to, lets say, Sally Anne Bowman murder case? Rami R 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge? Having read all the above I have to say I like the last idea of Rami's, if it could be made to work. That way the "news item" becomes the focus, rather than the people: we have good arguments on both sides: It seems distasteful to give a murderer the oxygen of publicity, when, to quote Linda Smith most of us would happily deprive them of the oxygen of oxygen. It seems odd to give someone the appearance of having been notable simply by dint of the fact they were murdered. But the murder case clearly was worthy of note, otherwise it wouldn't have been on the news. We already allow news into Wikipedia; after all, today's news is tomorrow's history. People could still (I guess) retrieve information on the people involved using the Wikipedia search function, couldn't they? Brequinda (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to the appropriate article regarding her murder case and create it if it doesn't already exist. Celarnor Talk to me 14:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes this sounds good to me and I'll do it depending on how the afd goes, copying the text now. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge this and Mark Dixie into a new article about the murder case. It seems to be quite a notable case, with media coverage extending over time - it was three years ago almost that she was murdered and it's still getting press coverage. Not just a local case as it's in nationwide news.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree. The DNA aspects and the sentence make the case notable. Problem is what title? I was surprised to find that Blenheim Crescent murder scores almost exactly the same number of Google hits as "Sally Anne Bowman" - I thought many media references omitted the location. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge I like Rami's idea. Makes sense to put both together. Let's not forget to include some info about the victim including the image of Sally that is on the current separate article about her. Msw1002 (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Opinion changed! The best thing is to merge both together. Mca2001 (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment.Don't merge. How can you put the poor girl on the same page as that evil nutcase. How are her family going to feel about it? Delete both pages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.101.26 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge Mark Dixie and Sally Anne Bowman into Murder of Sally Anne Bowman. The murder case is a notable crime, but the principals are not notable as people. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge as Sam Blacketer's suggestion, the murder case itself was headline news not in just a day, it was for weeks. Willirennen (talk) 23:45, 9 April 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.