Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Chapman

Neither article claims notability other than being an unfortunate murder victim (Jack the Ripper). The general consensus has been that is not enuf to warrant an article. The Jack the Ripper article does NOT link the names of his victims (rightly, IMHO), so these would be orphans if someone hadn't linked Annie's name on September 8. I suggest we make both of these redirs to the Ripper article, possibly merging the victim's biographical info into that article. Interestingly, both article claim the subject was the second victim. Niteowlneils 17:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jack the Ripper - based on RickK's comment. Delete - unknown victim - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:50, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Jack the Ripper and his victims have an extensive literature, and the victims are pretty well-known.  It's a major historical murder case, and therefore the victims really do rate their own articles.  RickK 21:10, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the same reasons as RickK. &mdash;Morven 22:15, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: In general, I agree that victims should not get break out articles for being victims, and in general I think non-significant bits should be folded in.  However, I have to agree that these victims have been the subject of intense interest in fictionalized versions of the tales.  They more than likely pass the test of whether general users will search for the information, and more than a stub can be written on each.  Geogre 01:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have guessed it possible for them to be more than stubs from looking at the articles, but I'll take your word for it--that's the main reason I vote to transwiki the non-notable 9/11 victims--in general, I don't think we should have articles that are destined to forever be stubs. So, keep. Also, when I went to link them from the ripper article, I noticed it is already over 40k and complaining about being too big, so keeping them separate makes sense from that angle, as well. I did move Polly Nichols to Mary Ann Nichols, since that's where the ripper article wants it, cleaned up the double-redirs, changed her from second to first, and marked them as stubs. Niteowlneils 03:10, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep, or get rid of Laci Peterson et al. Be consistent at least. - Hephaestos|&#167; 03:12, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)