Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Washington, D.C., quadruple murder


 * 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 Consensus to keep. Chillum 03:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

2015 Washington, D.C., quadruple murder

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - Neither the perpetrator nor any of the victims appear to be notable. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Obviously, you and I have different ideas of what constitutes notaable, but the entire family looks notable to me. The father was the CEO and President of the company American Iron Works, a construction company that helped build major D.C. buildings, such as the Verizon Center and the CityCenterDC. That in an of itself establishes notability for the victim and his entire family. Not to mention the fact that many reputable news organizations have covered the homicides. One of the notability guidelines is "significant coverage", and, well, this has gotten significant coverage in reputable news media. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as for the "WP:NOTNEWSPAPER" thing you linked to, one of the things it specifically says is this: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Well, reporting on a quadruple homicide is not "routine news reporting". Quadruple homicides don't happen every single day, and certainly aren't routine. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you created this article but you need to demonstrate what makes these killings notable; was there significant coverage of any of the family members prior to this event? If so, please provide sources. In 2013 there were an estimated 14,196 murders in the US. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any significant coverage of Walter Scott before his death, yet when he was shot at nine times in the back by a police officer and died, a Wikipedia article was created about him, and rightly so. Therefore, just because there isn't any significant coverage before death does not warrant deletion. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I will assume you have no sources for prior notability. Regarding Walter Scott, are you saying you don't see the difference between this event and that one? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You can't start claiming exceptions now. You said this warrants deletion because there wasn't any "significant coverage of any of the family members prior to this event". By that logic, we'd have to delete the articles on the shootings of Walter Scott, and Trayvon Martin, as well as the article on the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. That's why your logic doesn't make sense to me. I see the difference between this event and the Walter Scott one, but that doesn't make it automatically okay to subvert your "rule" that someone must have significant coverage before a person's death. Therefore, your argument is invalid. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the top of this page you'll see my reason for deletion: Neither the perpetrator nor any of the victims appear to be notable. - This is a news story about a murdered family that will shortly be out of the news cycle. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "This is a news story about a murdered family that will shortly be out of the news cycle." And with that comment, Somedifferentstuff, I direct you to WP:NOTABILITY – where it specifically states the following:"Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Therefore, even if you're right that the story will soon be out of the news cycle, it has already received significant coverage by multiple media outlets, and as such ongoing coverage is not required. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how Notability is not temporary works. See WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.  This is not significant coverage.  Significant coverage is the Trayvon Martin case, the Rodney King story, large cases that are major news stories for months. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:CRIME. I won't comment here further. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you've made it clear you won't address my actual arguments that are completely in policy in Wikipedia notability guideline, I won't comment here further. However, reading that, it's obvious that this article does comport with those guidelines. Mr. Savopoulos did have a role in a well-documented historical event: The building of the Verizon Center, through his construction company American Iron Works. That is all. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a "well-documented historical event". The Verizon Center is notable. That's it. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with SilverSurfingSerpent. To SilverSurfingSerpent, don't bother wasting your breath.  This nomination is ridiculous and without any merit whatsoever.  All of the (supposed) reasons offered by Somedifferentstuff are just plain wrong.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be the least productive comment I've seen in an AfD all month. WP:ATA &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I stated my opinion that the nomination was without merit. I stated my opinion that the reasons offered are incorrect.  That is exactly the type of opinion that is appropriate for an AfD.  That is exactly the type of opinion that an AfD is meant to solicit.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep:, Speedily so. The incident has been covered on national and international media. It passes GNG and should be kept as an article. I think the nominator got confused between notability of "perpetrators" and "events". For example, we do not have an article on every single person who was killed during 9/11 but we do have an article about 9/11, same analogy here, the event is notable and should be given a mainspace article. However, I would like to advise that the article is 'renamed' to a more encyclopedic name which gives information, such as Savopoulos family murders or The 2015 Mansion murders. both of the renames I have proposed give out more information than the current title. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment The article does need some cleanup which I will be very happy to do as soon as a decision is made to keep the article as per GNG.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, FreeatlastChitchat, and thank you for recognizing that my arguments are valid. As for your proposed name changes, I don't have a problem with them, I do like Savopoulos family murders more than 2015 Mansion murders though. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We can discuss the name change at some later point and in some other place. But, I will say that a name such as Savopoulos family murders is disrespectful to the housekeeper (and, not to mention, factually inaccurate).  The housekeeper was just as much a victim and she should not be considered any "less" important than the Savopoulos family.  What if I proposed a renamed title such as "the Veralicia Figueroa murder"?  No, that would be equally unacceptable.  But, back to the original point at hand: yes, this article is a snowball keep and a speedy keep.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep:, this is not routine news, when it gets international coverage, and involves violence and evil more characteristic of a scripted terrorist attack than a random crime or disgruntled worker incident, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER needs to be clarified that significantly notable crimes like this don't get deleted just because there was no prior news coverage of suspect or victim. Bachcell (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep - Actually, Snowball Keep. Ridiculous and silly that this was even nominated. I mean, really? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

strong keep Huge coverage. Article can be edited and corrected in future when the suspect is arrested, prosecuted and declared guilty/innocent. Notability exists. 223.176.14.85 (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Events need to have Lasting impact and continued coverage. This is routine news. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  13:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Look at the following: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Also, routine news is stuff like weather reporting, sports, cars, etc. Reporting on a quadruple homicide of a prominent family in Washington, D.C. is not routine, it's unique, things like that just rarely ever happen in neighborhoods like that. Also, there will be ongoing coverage, specifically when the defendant in the case is going through a trial. Just saying. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I explained to you above, this is not significant coverage. And "Temporary" does not refer to a few days. "Notability is not temporary" is talking about things that had significant coverage but are now no longer being discussed.  i.e. Watergate scandal, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, etc. Things that are obviously notable yet are no longer receiving news coverage. "it's unique, things like that just rarely ever happen in neighborhoods like that" Completely untrue.  Read more newspapers. "Also, there will be ongoing coverage"  ...WP:CRYSTAL. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  14:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * SilverSurfingSerpent is correct; Padenton is not. This event has made international news.  That is significant coverage.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: This has been receiving a good amount of media coverage in the past few days. Considering the nature of the crime, the victims, and the fact that more perpetrators are out there, this will no doubt continue to be covered as more facts come along. My only criticism of the article is that some details need to be expanded on a little. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage is varied, in-depth and ongoing. Fairly unusual circumstances in the crime. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - It doesn't matter whether the subjects are notable. The crime is notable in the Washington, DC, area.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Update
The person who created this article on May 21, 2015 has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock puppet  -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That may be so. But, that has no bearing on this AfD discussion.  Regardless of who created this article, we are discussing whether or not the subject is notable.  From the looks of things above, this article is clearly heading for a "keep", if not a "snowball keep".  Somedifferentstuff is the editor who nominated this article for deletion.  I am curious as to why Somedifferentstuff mentioned this "update" about the alleged sock-puppet, when that information has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the proposed deletion.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a fact pertinent to the discussion, as he has participated quite heavily in this AfD. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's true and you make an excellent (valid) point. However, the "update" informed the rest of us that (A) SilverSurfingSerpent created the article in question; the "update" did not inform us that (B)  SilverSurfingSerpent particpiated heavily in this AfD discussion.  Point "A" is irrelevant to this AfD discussion, Point B (as you pointed out) is indeed relevant.  So, again, why is the "update" informing us of the irrelevant fact A, as opposed to the relevant fact B?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Keep Obviously. You are correct that none of the actors in this event are notable, however the event itself is very notable. I don't think the suspect, nor any of the family members should have pages of their own, of course. Because, like you said, they are not notable. But the event itself should definitely have a page because the event itself is definitely notable. Robo042 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2015 (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.