Talk:Death of Charlotte Shaw

This article
May I ask why this article (tragic as it is) is deemed to be suitable for an Encyclopaedia, Surely it’s a news article and is on the wrong website. I feel sorry for the family, but in what way is it noteworthy; never mind a candidate for excellent article etc…BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the event has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and, as a bonus, meets the subject-specific criteria. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is where we must differ. That it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is not enough jusification in itself for inclusuion. That it meets the subject-specific criteria. It doesn't. This article beautifully put together as it is, is just not notable, and of little or no long term interest.BeckenhamBear (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it is, otherwise the GNG would say something different. As for WP:EVENT, would you care to point out which of those criteria it fails? And "little or no long-term interest" is clealry nothing more than a personal opinion, and one with which 3,700 people disagree, even four years after the event. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, with the greatest respect to you. The article does not meet the criteria of "the rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)". No part of this event has changed English law; as another example. As for 3700 people disagreeing; alas not! Those people only accessed the page for the simple reason it was promoted onto the front page as a featured article and curiosity was temporarily aroused. Why was it nominated? While I am VERY impressed at your technical expertise and the articles symmetry; this is still a news article.BeckenhamBear (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's of no historical significance, why was The Daily Telegraph, a highbrow national newspaper, writing about it three-and-a-half years after the tragedy? If you have a reason other than a personal opinion unsupported by policy or guideline to believe that the subject is not notable, then I invite you to nominate it for deletion. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made no personal opinion on this; It's clear in black and white, this is a news article. My view is fully supported by the very citeria you reference in your defence of the article. Some articles do not belong on Wikipedia, but fit one of the Wikimedia sister projects. Wikinews in this case. When I get the time, I'll read up the procedure to do this; unless of course you already have it on there? In which case it would be a delete from this place. BeckenhamBear (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism ?
The final main paragraph of the article appears to have been vandalised. Would someone knowledgeable please repair it ? Darkman101 (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)