Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Martine Vik Magnussen case

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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Martine Vik Magnussen case

The Martine Vik Magnussen case (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Just another murder... Fails WP:N. Biruitorul (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Nothing to indicate anything notable, though it might pass the "Skittles" test of making an article about something that happened in the past week. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Currently 20800 hits on Google on "Martine Vik Magnussen". There are probably articles which don't mention the name too. It is notable in Norway, and probably the UK, (in Yemen too?) but probably not very notable worldwide. Bib (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Potential to become notable case, but many of the claims of importance don't stand up, like having been on the same dance floor as P Diddy or having gone to the same school as the Crown Prince of Norway. Uh, wow. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. First, from Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. So the article is notable, because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, even if a majority of these are Norwegian sources.
However, here's text from Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
Since the article is about the case, The Martine Vik Magnussen case, it does not matter that the person according to wikipedia rules is not notable.
It does say that timely news subjects not suitable for wikipedia may be suitable for wikinews. But that is what we're discussing here, is this timely new suitable? It says Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. This news is beyond that IMO. I might be wrong, and I might change my vote to delete if someone explains it with some other wiki rules, or another interpretation on these wiki rules. Bib (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, put it this way: just because an article can exist, should it exist? Biruitorul (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know Bib (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
That's not the question, it already does exists. The question is: should it be deleted, and the answer is: not unless there is overwhelming evidence and consensus that it violates policy. Lampman Talk to me! 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is a valid question! (Unfortunately we don't have "proposed articles - people just go ahead and create them, and if they're unfit, others try and delete them.) If only people reflected on that point before creating articles, we wouldn't have 2.3 million of them, of which a hefty proportion is rubbish unfit for an encyclopedia calling itself that. So again: possibly policy allows for this article (though I still contend it fails WP:N), but really, what encyclopedia contains an article on some random murder? Just because something is permissible doesn't make it right. Biruitorul (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
It might be an interesting question, but for a different forum - this is a deletion debate. Personally I have many times had great use of articles that others might consider "rubbish". Lampman Talk to me! 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
1. No, the existence or non-existence of this article is immaterial to the advisability of its existence. An instant before User:Pauly04 created it, it was unworthy of existence, and an instant afterward, it remained so. Merely coming into being did not alter its fundamental lack of encyclopedicity. 2. I take your point: one man's trash is another man's treasure. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have some standards. That doesn't imply the "significant news coverage-->article" equation must always be true. Biruitorul (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aftenposten is not considered tabloid press, and neither is BBC. This case is notable, and to say otherwise just shows an Anglo-Saxon centrist bias. Lampman Talk to me! 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1. I reject that silly accusation wholeheartedly, as I vigorously pushed for deletion here. 2. The murder happened in London, so obviously the BBC would cover it. I don't care whether the victim is British, Norwegian, Malay or Zulu - the bottom line is that this is a routine murder of an ordinary individual and the fact that the press has covered it indicates that the press is doing its job, not that her murder deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. Biruitorul (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing routine about this case at all. The international aspect and the status of the missing witness has made it a cause célèbre, like it or not. To call it a "routine murder" is like saying that Rodney King was just another reckless driver. Lampman Talk to me! 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, Lampman, let's not exaggerate here. Was she a member of the Royal Family? Were UFOs involved? Has Norway mobilised its Navy in the North Sea? No: the victim was a regular person killed in a none-too-uncommon fashion - such things (sadly) happen every day. The only possible circumstance making it slightly out of the ordinary is that the alleged murderer's father is a billionaire. But so what? Granted, had it been Warren Buffet or Bill Gates' son, OK, but this guy has <$10 bil (he's not on our list) and made some money in the hotel and cola industries. Just because his son allegedly killed someone doesn't confer notability on the case.
Oh, and Rodney King: spare me. [1] vs. [2]. Lasting cultural impacts vs. (at this point at least) none whatsoever. Biruitorul (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
And there's the bias again. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that demands notability on an international level, national notability is enough. It just so happens that American notability normally equates international notability, but this guy's father is the Buffet or Gates of his country. In Norway, the case is notable in itself simply because of its uniqueness: it hardly ever happens that Norwegians get murdered abroad (never mind quite possibly by a Yemeni billionaire's son). As for Rodney King, I am in no way equating the two, I am simply trying to make the point that cases which per se may seem trivial can gain notability exactly because of the media attention they get.
But look, the current consensus on this matter is quite clear:

A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope.
While the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) of such a crime are often not notable on their own, this does not preclude the notability of the criminal act itself.

and that, I believe, says it all. The delitionists here seem to be arguing how they think Wikipedia should work rather than how it does work. But as I've said before, that is a debate for a different forum, this is a deletion debate relating to a specific article. Lampman Talk to me! 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your claims of bias are absurd. I happened to pick Buffett and Gates, but I could as easily have picked Carlos Slim or Lakshmi Mittal. The guy's father (and, by the way, notability is not inherited) isn't even in the top 100, so he can't be that significant. Sure, Yemen has a wealthiest person, but so do Haiti, Malawi and Sierra Leone - that doesn't mean they're especially rich by global standards. Of course the case is going to garner some attention in Norway: the media loves these kinds of stories. That doesn't mean (and, might I add, WP:N/CA is merely a proposed policy) every transient and, all things considered, trivial episode merits a place in an encyclopedia. If I see some lasting impact in half a year (or better yet a decade) I might revise my opinion. Biruitorul (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well you're just confirming what I suspected. You seem to imply that notability can only exist on a global level, and that notability - for entrepreneurship or other things - on a national level in Yemen, Haiti, Malawi or Sierra Leone is somehow worthless. This way you are only promoting the systemic bias that Wikipedia tries so hard to counter. Surely you can't deny that if global notability was to be the criterion for inclusion, then the article mass would be unfairly slanted towards the US? And yes, I know that WP:N/CA is only yet a proposed policy, that's why I used the word "consensus" and not "policy". At the moment, however, it's what we have, and as for your suggested policy of not creating articles on anything more recent than ten years, I fail to see what that is based on. It certainly would cancel out one of the main advantages we have over print encyclopedias. Lampman Talk to me! 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify my comments. a) If (say) a Yemenite amasses a $50 billion fortune, by all means write an article on him. We have articles on billionaires from Nigeria, [Naguib Sawiris|Egypt]], Brazil - great. No problem with me. We have an article on the man who was once Romania's wealthiest, and on her wealthiest man today - but not so much because of their wealth (not that impressive globally) but because their other activities made them notable. I myself wrote an article on a Romanian murderer, but mostly because of his crimes' lasting cultural impact. b) I certainly don't suggest waiting a decade for everything; a few months is usually enough. Of course some things one knows right away are going to have a lasting impact and so creating an article on them immediately isn't a problem. But it's this rush to start articles on events that could well be forgotten quite soon that is disturbing and damages our reputation. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with you about the damaged reputation. I don't recall any external sources complaining we cover too trivial topics, but I have seen a lot of them commending our coverage of contemporary issues. Here we have an advantage over print encyclopedias in our up-to-date coverage, but also over internet news sources in that we contribute background and context (like the beautiful map on International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence; you'd have to leaf through a quite a few newspapers to find anything that clear and comprehensive).
Ultimately this is a matter of philosophy and personal opinion. My belief is that even if the subject is trivial (which this one certainly is not, with an international incident brewing over extradition issues) the article is not so, as long as it is well written and sourced.
Anyway, these are larger issues. The only issue at hand here is: does this article violate policy? I think the obvious answer is "no". Lampman Talk to me! 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Again back to the philosophical can / should dichotomy - I don't think either of us will convince the other at this point, but it's been an instructive debate. Biruitorul (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The case seems to have garnered significant international attention. --Sharkface217 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
And...? That entitles it to a place in an encyclopedia? Really, let's think about the bigger picture here, let's maintain some sort of standard higher than "it was in the news a lot, so, hey, let's have an article on it!" Biruitorul (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Why should that be a standard which is too low? —Nightstallion 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, because I like to see some sort of lasting impact, or potential of one, in an encyclopedic entry. Personal opinion, I know, but it informs my interpretation of WP:N, which is why I made the nomination. Biruitorul (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, we can always delete it later on. —Nightstallion 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Albeit perhaps not in the limelight in the U.S., this remains a public case in the UK, Norway and Yemen, and should thus qualify in all means to a Wikipedia entry. --Lipothymia (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I agree with others that although the article passes Wikipedia:Notability, it also fails WP:NOT. So here's why I think it presently it should be kept - because if we delete it, it will only presently be added back by another Anon. Secondly, the longer term issues of extradition between the UK and Yemen, let alone the diplomatic pressure Norway will bring to bear, would easily push this past a News point to an issue of excellent encyclopaedic note. In example, I'd say look at the Alexander Litvinenko article - initially news of one person dying, now an ongoing diplomatic issue clearly worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. Let the Anon's edit and add as the news piece ebbs and flows, and review in a months time once its significance (in light of the police report) has been established or not. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - one of the main advantages to Wikipedia is that we are broad in our coverage. This is a well written article that complies with all Wikipedia policies. We need to welcome more like it. Johntex\talk 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If "it's policy-compliant" is your standard for article retention, fine. (To which I ask, again: just because an article can exist, should it exist?) But if we keep, and it looks we will, might we find a better title? The "the" is sub-standard, for instance. Biruitorul (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree the title should change, definitely. As to your other question, my answer would be Yes. If an article complies with policy then it should be allowed to exist. If someone takes the time to write a reasonably well-written, reasonably well-referenced, policy compliant article, then we should keep it - plain and simple. We need more articles like that, not fewer. Johntex\talk 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A shooting spree that killed 1? A 3-hour blackout? (I hear Iraq's had quite a few of those in the last 5 years.) A dozen non-fatal cases of measles? (As opposed to the 70 who died of measles in Afghanistan in 2000.) 4 dead in small planes? (Cessnas crash all the time.) Skittles? Turbulence? This murder? If that's what you want from an encyclopedia, well, I guess you're in the majority. But if any of this had happened outside the English-speaking developed world, or before ~2004, you can bet they wouldn't have articles. Now I know your answer will probably be "let's create articles on those other episodes rather than deleting these", but it's unfortunate people don't consider the probable lasting impact of a current event before dignifying it with an article purely because the press has covered it (which, I will remind you, is, after all, the press's job - to cover big news stories, whether or not they'll matter beyond next week). Biruitorul (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You are exactly right that my reply is to go improve the coverage of other parts of the world if they are lagging behind coverage of events in America. If all the effort that went into trying to delete well-referenced articles went into creating more good articles we would be far better off. It would be a wonderful thing if Wikipedia had existed in 1900 and we had 100 or 1000 murder articles from period of 1900-1910 so that readers could compare those articles to the crimes of 2000-2010.
The mistake you make is assuming that we have not considered the consequences. The consequences of such articles would be that people have a resource that provides a more complete understanding of the world we live in. So, perhaps you should heed your own advice and give some consideration to the lasting impact of that?
If people want to write policy-compliant, well-referenced articles on recent events then we should applaud their efforts, not discourage them. The Skittles article you dislike so thoroughly is 3x better referenced than Elephant shrew or Aardvark. Maybe the Aardvark and elephant shrew articles are important animals, but the Skittles incident and its themes of nutrition, school discipline, and zero tolerance enforcement are of interest to a number of Wikipedia readers. As is this article on the Martine Vik Magnussen case. There is no reason to deny them the ability to learn about these topics. Johntex\talk 03:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a question of priorities. If people prefer devoting energy to video-game reratings or some football team (OK, just kidding there) rather than important buildings or composers, then we can't stop them (or I should say those of us who would like to can't).
I honestly didn't know you were the Skittles author, but my position remains the same: it's a nice "offbeat news" sort of story, but I'd prefer if we didn't head down that slippery slope (seems we're doing so, though). Of course it's well-referenced: you're a competent editor and know how to source articles properly. That doesn't mean (in my view) that the animals you mentioned shouldn't receive more attention, because in a years' time, aardvarks will still matter but the Skittles incident will be long forgotten.
To address your question on impact: I think with some events, the impact is obvious right away and it's good to have an article at once. (Examples might include the Indian Ocean tsunami or Kosovo declaring independence.) With other things, though (this article being a good example), I don't think it would kill people to wait six or even three months to see if indeed there's something more than transitory about a subject before enshrining it here. And yes, I do consider the impact of the articles I create and those I seek to delete - I see an encyclopedia as a general resource on subjects of scholarly interest, not as a repository for everything. Granted, we here have a much wider scope than print encyclopedias, and I'm genuinely grateful for that, but just how wide that scope should be remains a matter of contention. Biruitorul (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the Aardvark is an important animal and our article on the Aardvark deserves to be improved; my mention of it is designed partly to point out that we have much work to do in lots of places. But also partly to show what you have just said - people will write about what they want to write about. That is not perfect, but it is a pretty good system, given that we have only volunteers to rely on. Besides, our readers and our authors are overlapping populations. We have to imagine that the things our writers want to write about will also largely relate to what our readers want to read about.
I am glad you mention this 2007 football team I helped write about. 100 years from now will not be considered of the all-time greats of the sport, or even of the school. The school boasts 1, 2, 3 national championship teams that we have not written about. Why? Partly because people care about recent history. Partly because it is easier to write about things while references are fresh and available. Partly just because it is interesting. If no one beats me to it I may write those other articles someday as well.
I also did a lot of work on October 2007 California wildfires. We wrote the bulk of that article in October/November when the events were fresh and I am glad we did so. Again, sourcing is easier at the time of the events. Does it need a copyedit now that a few months have passed? Absolutely, but the article is still better for being primarily written when the events were occurring and people cared deeply about the topic.
Current event articles on Wikipedia are a very good thing. The idea that they will evolve over time as our perspectives change is also a good thing. But lets not delete them - let's let them mature and evolve alongwith our perspectives. Johntex\talk 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see, right? Who knows where we'll be in a decade's time - maybe we'll have collapsed under our own weight, or maybe the 2006,7,8 current-events articles will indeed be appreciated then. I look forward to finding out. Biruitorul (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fair. I can't claim to know the future so I could be wrong about whether people will appreciate these articles. I am pretty confident though, that if the articles ever pose a true risk of us collapsing under our weight, that we can always delete or split off articles at that time. Thanks for your open dialog about this question. Johntex\talk 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure, and may the deletionist-inclusionist war remain civil! Biruitorul (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
"Murder of..." seems to be quite standard, see Category:2007 crimes or Category:2005 crimes. Lampman Talk to me! 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (If I may chip in as an occasional contributor, that is) I can only compare this to "just another crime" that has turned into a substantial wikipedia entry, namely the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The London murder may not have received the same coverage yet, but as others have pointed out, there is a diplomatic dimension that makes it more than just another murder. The latest in this regard is that Yemen might refuse to cooperate in order to avenge itself for Britain's refusal to extradite Abu Hamza al-Masri, the hook-handed cleric.[3] My feeling is that this will not go away soon. If it does, the article can always be removed. (toufoul) 21:14, 25 March 2008 (GMT)


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.