Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le


 * 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, early close per WP:SNOW, no way that there will be a consensus to delete given what we have so far. Note that article has been moved to Murder of Annie Le. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Annie Le

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

There appears to be no claim of notability here. A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While it's only a guideline Notability (people) would seem to apply. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - If this is removed, so should the entry on Suzanne Jovin. Both should be kept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.80.171 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand - As I had left on the talk page, it is still available for expansion. It is stub, but as usual, it can be expanded.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. A lot of people go missing, yes, but most people who go missing do not get massive (national) news coverage, as she did/does. She meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability because of all the media coverage she has already received over the past week and is continuing to receive. This is one of those big disappearance stories that hits every once in a while. —Lowellian (reply) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep 1500 Gnews hits and ten times that many Google hits seems to assert notability. ArcAngel (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Agree with User:ArcAngel (as suggested by my vote above), but I want to elaborate/clarify one thing: Not just 10 times (that would be 15,000), more like 100 times -- there are 233,000 hits for the phrase "annie le" as I write this comment; even after attempting to filter against other persons with the same name by searching simultaneously with the keyword "yale", we still get 114,000 hits, and that's just within one week of her disappearance. Also, I'm seeing 3000+ articles on Google News. —Lowellian (reply) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: When I searched Google I did so with quotation marks. I bet that's the difference in our results.  ArcAngel (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I also did so with quotation marks, so that does not explain the difference in our results. Shrug. Google is sometimes strange. —Lowellian (reply) 22:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, looks like it's a time issue, since I did my search later than you did. The numbers just keep growing as the news story itself keeps growing. They're up to over 5,000 now on Google News. —Lowellian (reply) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: When I wanted a concise rundown on Le, the first place I came was Wikipedia—articles like this are one of the many facets of Wikipedia that make it so useful. I agree that the wide coverage of the incident makes this person notable enough for an article, at least for the time being. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Most talked about story in the news currently KSWarrior8 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Especially given recent news reports of a body found in her lab building. Murder in a Yale campus building is a big deal, similar to the Suzanne Jovin case. What a horrible tragedy in any case. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I support changing this article from a focus on Annie Le's biography to an event-oriented view. The article I cited above does the same. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  19:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The news coverage really has been significant--it's at least worth waiting to see what details emerge. And the details are pretty strange as it is.  The Yale association also makes it a part of the history of one of the most important universities in the country.  --Longwoodprof (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Tragic, but non-notable murder victim. Does every murder victim on, say, America's Most Wanted, get their own page on Wikipedia? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It makes Wikipedia look really ridiculous and amateurish that every time someone comes here for an encyclopedic recount of an event receiving extensive national news coverage that somebody has tagged it for deletion (after apparently doing 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 0 seconds of research to determine whether or not it's an extremely and obviously notable national story). This is an extremely notable event, being a dominant news item across the nation.  It will obviously be something that affects Yale University's identity for a generation (if you disagree, let's place a wager). --209.37.216.66 (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines seem to suggest that the article should be titled Death of Annie Le or Murder of Annie Le, referring to the event, rather than the individual. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not allowed to say I believe the article should be kept? --209.37.216.66 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can comment all you want, but !votes from IP editors are generally ignored in the overall decision. ArcAngel (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it mean "!votes"? And why are my arguments any less valid because I don't have an account?  This does not seem sensible and should be revisited.  I have read the notability rules and the "Not News" rules and believe I have correctly interpreted them, and that seems unrelated to whether or not I have an account. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read this section, it covers AFD discussions. ArcAngel (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be a pest, but I don't understand. That section says: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments."  Thus I suggested a course of action (keep) and followed it with arguments.  The section further says "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)."  But I did not misrepresent my reasons and am not acting in bad faith.  I suppose I should return to watching Web 2.0 rather than attempting to participate.This article I read recently, which notes Wikipedia's inscrutable elite, seems apt. --209.37.216.66 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus says that !votes (Keep, Delete, Merge, Support, Oppose, Neutral, etc.) aren't "counted" when made by IP editors in any type of discussion where "voting" takes place, such as here. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.  ArcAngel (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not an admin, but I'm not aware of any policy that states that. Anonymous users are allowed to comment at AFD; their comments may be discounted, but only if there's reason to believe they're a sockpuppet or single-purpose account. I see no evidence of that here. See the Guide to Deletion. Robofish (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying on my talk page that IP votes are not counted at RFA, not here. I hereby apologize to the IP if I came across brusk or otherwise incivil, I have restored your !vote.  ArcAngel (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole little spat is perfect evidence of why a vast number of possible contributors keep the heck away from editing W'Pedia. TinPot ArcAngel, who struggles to spell 'brusque', trashing entirely sensible and legitimate input from another user, for spurious reasons. Then backing down, taking a huge amount of unconstructive time. Can you regular editors start monitoring your own, please, rather than aggressively singling out competent but less regular contributors? Sigh. (My substantive input below; this, on the process of the debate; do NOT delete, ArcAngel or similar.) Jmanooch (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep given the most recent news coverage. This is definitely notable now (and for the same reasons as the IP editor above, I think the AfD vote should be resolved ASAP as numerous individuals will be coming to Wikipedia for more information now). --Dlugar (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Unquestionably newsworthy. The last homicide at Yale was in 1998.  --AStanhope (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Keep, but rename to "Murder of Annie Le" or "Death of Annie Le". This is quite notable ... as an event ... not as a biography of Miss Le.  The deletionists here on Wikipedia will only be satisfied once each and every article on Wikipedia is deleted.  And maybe not even then.  Unreal.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro, 14 September 2009)


 * !vote by block-evading IP sockpuppet of indef'd User:Joseph A. Spadaro struck. Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * umm, ok, but it might as well keep its dot. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As AStanhope says, unquestionably newsworthy.  However, newsworthiness has never been the threshold for notability, WP:NOTNEWS.  This is a tragic apparent murder.  But many such tragic murders occur every day.  They do not rise to the level of notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Murders on American university campuses are extremely rare; murders on Ivy League campuses even more so. Compare Suzanne Jovin or Sinedu Tadesse. jdb (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per JosephBarillari. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as JosephBarillari says, a murder on the campus of a university like Yale is pretty much guaranteed to be notable. In this case, there's definitely been enough coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename Murder of Annie Le, assuming its a homicide, per JA Spadaro. While its true that not every murder is notable, this one IS. the fairness of whose murder is reported widely in the press and whose isnt would make a great book, and then an article here, if sourced extensively (race, class, gender, age of victim, details of crime, country, etc. all probably effect reporting in unfair ways). but fairness aside, this murder is getting massive attention, so it gets an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is already an article about what kind of murders/kidnapping are widely-reported: see missing white woman syndrome. —Lowellian (reply) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps you failed to notice, but she's Vietnamese, not white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.146.122 (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps you failed to notice, but I never said she was. User:Mercurywoodrose was talking about a Wikipedia article that discussed what types of murders/kidnappings are widely-reported, and I gave the link to such an article. —Lowellian (reply) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Quoting the creater of this deletion entry: "A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability"... it's later; she's dead; 'nuff said... ColdCase (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is unquestionably keep at this point. However, because she became notable due to her bizarre murder and because police have ruled it a homicide, a move to Murder of Annie Le seems warranted.--Eightofnine (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep & Move: I concur with Mercurywoodrose, Eightofnine, etc. The event has been widely covered so it should be kept, but also renamed; it is the event, not the victim, that received wide coverage. Move to Murder of Annie Le. -- Noj r (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * - The BBC covers it and it is not a British related story. That says something.  By Wikipedia practice, the article, if kept, should be called "Murder of Annie Le".  Suzanne Jovin gives us some guidance.  That is a Yale murder.  However, that did not go through an AFD so we have no idea where that is an "other crap exists" or not.  As for my own opinion, I am not sure.  It is definitely not "definitely notable" but has some notability leanings due to the British coverage.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, internationally covered story. No opinion about the renaming. If the article were moved, would Annie Le become a redirect? Loves  Macs  (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; This is a notable story and current event, and wikipedia provides an important service by offering readers a convenient way to follow its developments. It is, after all, the first murder at Yale in years and certainly one of the most unusual stories about a student disappearance that I've ever heard.  I agree though that it could be renamed.    Johnny California  23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "This is a notable story and current event" this is exactly the type of argument that makes the subject appropriate for Wikinews rather than Wikipedis. See WP:NTEMP; "Notability is not temporary." TJRC (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A decent article on the murder of Annie Le will be referenced for years to come. Cf. the Suzanne Jovin case. Are you saying we have to wait a few years before we can decide whether articles are notable or not? Ridiculous. 75.197.110.237 (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice for re-creation if later on this appears to be notable. Notability is not temporary, however, it just happened so it precisely fits WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT. Location (talk)
 * Weak Keep on this one. There are the WP:BIO1E concerns, and it's geared to basically be an obituary, more or less, but I want to see this one develop.  Something about instinct on this one. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Location (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and stop nominating these sensational cases. Just stop nominating them. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This person was rendered more than notable enough for Wikipedia by virtue of the tragic events that befell her.Killdevil (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep For Christ's sake. Rename of course, but the article should stay. I can only imagine that the deletists' ultimate goal is an unused and uncited encyclopedia. 75.197.110.237 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. This has been discussed nationwide like through NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, etc. 97.124.255.168 (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good heavens, my first AfD !vote in many moons.  Noteworthiness is obvious to American readers, though I don't blame non-Americans for bemusement here.  Coverage on national news sources has been vast, and has already included analytic content discussing the socio-economic implications of the case, even at this early stage in the course of events.  Clearly notable as a murder, renaming is fine. Xoloz (talk) 05:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - We've got an interesting phenom here. Google news links to an article, it gets tons of traffic, all of who see an ugly AfD notice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Though this is no doubt a tragedy, we're discussing a different question. The bar for notability on Wikipedia has gotten too low.  The fact that Google News, ABC, NBC, etc. are all yielding a lot of hits now is only an indication of the content of the news cycle, not the victim's or the case's actual long-term wide-scale notability.  If those counts are still this high in a few months, I'll happily reconsider my vote. msk (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - A current event such as this takes time to determine actual notability. Whitespider23 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename - Many people inquiring about this matter are going to be using Wikipedia to learn more about it, so this definitely shouldn't be deleted -- however I do believe renaming is in order because people want to read about the actual death of Annie Le, not a biography of her. This is my first time putting my two cents in for anything, I hope "!voted" properly. Someone please enlighten me if I didn't. THWoodman (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per notability of the crime itself and that the name of the article indicates that.--Judo112 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the story of the murder of Annie Le has been top news on major television programs and in newspapers in the United States for nearly a week now. Just by this very fact alone, I think the article should stay. David Straub (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Sure - Does the fact that this happened at Yale make it more notable than otherwise? Would it be less notable if it took place at large state university?  A small state college?  A technical hihgh school?  A shopping mall?  My gut sense is that this is not Wikipedia worthy.  Perhaps there should be a "current events" sub-section of Wikipedia for what are essentially news stories with a short shelf life and little or no encyclopedic value.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.97.90 (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add a note. I already voted for deletion, but I must take umbrage with the comment by editor ColdCase, to wit, Quoting the creater of this deletion entry: "A lot of people go missing all the time why is this person different? Later events may show some sort of notability" [...] "it's later; she's dead; 'nuff said..." as seriously flawed and illogical. Being dead does not confer notability. I am really surprised at the number of keep votes; I hope sentimentality is not the guiding force behind them, because it is plain that, alive, Annie Le would be deemed as lacking WP:NOTABILITY in a New York second. If the article is kept it should be changed to Death of Annie Le or Murder of Annie Le. And if that means deleting Suzanne Jovin and Sinedu Tadesse for the sake of fairness, so be it. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Death does not in itself confer notability, true, but international and intense national media coverage and the unusual circumstances of the death do. —Lowellian (reply) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Reluctantly. A tragic death, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and Wikipedia is not news. Notability is not temporary. In a few months, if this is still discussed, then we can and should have this article. Until then, however, there is no way we can properly assess whether this event has lasting significance; any such prediction is WP:CRYSTAL. Tim Song (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong, border-line Speedy Keep - Major news story, just so tragic and touching to people. I guess the Cambridge Bay Weather is quite stormy today!  --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned by the "tragic and touching to people" bit&mdash;hopefully everyone has not too much of an emotional attachment to this person that it is swaying opinion in favour of "keep" rather than judging it on its notability. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'm puzzled by the keep votes. This isn't notable; it might be considered newsworthy now for whatever reasons, but this isn't a newspaper. Hairhorn (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would be obtuse of us not to have an article, given the coverage. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why is this person different I too ask... she was found dead about two days ago. Nothing in the sources and nothing that has been said here show any form of long-term notability. This is all short-term news coverage. Tim Song's links say it all. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  20:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. If it's the most notable case on the news in the country, then of course it is worthy of an article, and no doubt someone might research the Annie Le case in the future while looking at infamous murders, like the Murder of Nixzmary Brown. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They might? Is this verifiable though? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * String Delete. It might well be newsworthy, but not notable. I'm sure there's not a page for every murdered person. Nothing makes this one stand out from the rest. WP:NOTNEWS  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Nothing makes this one stand out from the rest"? Really? Not the intense nation-wide media coverage, far above the norm for most murders? Not that it took place at an Ivy League university? Then by your standards, what would it take to make a murder "notable" enough for Wikipedia? —Lowellian (reply) 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * String Delete. Per Ronhjones. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. News coverage of the news coverage: NBC Producer Trampled At Annie Le "Briefing". Analysis of the intersection of the Jaycee Dugard and Annie Le cases. Abductive  (reasoning) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Count is (at this point) 30 keep, 10 deletes, and a couple keep/moves. Recommend close, and discuss any remaining issues on the talk. -Stevertigo 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sometimes a murder becomes an event tightly bound up with the history of an institution. Just like the Suzanne Jovin murder in 1988 was an event that profoundly influenced the university experience of every student and faculty member at Yale at that time (and for several years afterwards), so will Annie Le's murder be a significant event repeatedly referred to by the current generation of Yale students and faculty.  Countless members of the Yale community will come to Wikipedia looking for a clear and unbiased source of the facts of the case.  I second Stevertigo's recommendation that the AfD be closed. —SaxTeacher  (talk)  03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand apparently an event being reported repeatedly on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, New York Daily News, Newsday, Washington Post ect is not grounds for notability. I mean I can understand if it was mentioned once on the local news but this has been on national TV and newspaper headlines day in and day out. RiseRobotRise (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Keeping with the fact that Suzanne Jovin article meets notability requirements, then given the amount of reliably sourced news article about the missing turned homicide case then this case should meet the requirement required.  However, that being said if the policy WP:NOT is expanded then this proposal for deletion should be revisited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The location/context, volume of coverage, and sensational nature of the killing all suggest that the event merits space on Wikipedia. A question for those supporting their arguments to delete on the grounds that we cannot know if this will continue to meet notability criteria after some time has elapsed: why should that counsel in favor of deleting the article now, rather than keeping it until such time as it becomes clear that it is no longer notable? In other words, why the strong presumption against long-term notability? SS451 (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that every time an event like this occurs (no matter where or which country) it should be kept because it might possibly achieve long-term notability but we don't know that yet so it ought to be kept just in case? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  01:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This will fade away very quickly as most stories of this nature do. Also, it bothers me that users keep putting more importance on the case because it happened in a Yale building. Um. So? I don't think we should put special importance on certain universities like that. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why not delete the article about Natalee Holloway? Nobody talks about her anymore RiseRobotRise (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists. Why not nominate it if you believe this to be the case? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This has not only received national coverage, but also extensive international coverage nilicule (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stong Delete WP is NOT news. Temporary fame is NOT notability.
 * Strong Keep. Granted, Wikipedia is not news, but Annie Le's murder will be remembered for being an extraordinary and significant event at Yale. If we deleted all articles based upon the fact that the person's notability would "fade away", I don't understand why the James Kim and Cho Seung-hui articles haven't been deleted. -Imhyunho (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange that this discussion isnt closed soon as it is obvious that we will keep it.--Judo112 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Imhyunho WP:Other stuff exists. Perhaps nobody has gotten round to it yet? Why not nominate them if you believe this to be the case? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's precedent, articles with similar circumstances have not been questioned, why should this one be? I'm not going to nominate all other articles for deletion because I think its silly to do so. If a murder case is talking about on the news all day long, and is constantly on the news, and has garnered a great deal of national attention, there should be no reason to delete it. Some people disagree with this and only believe that subjects who do not have the same amount of notability as United States Presidents should be deleted. This is an excellent example of Wikipedian nonsense. If you think that the rules should be changed, candlewicke, why don't you petition to change the notability guidelines to your liking? RiseRobotRise (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The argument that the encyclopedia should automatically delete those of transitory fame is fallacious. Almost no one "talks about" obscure popes and kings of the tenth century in their daily life; the notability of those people has certainly "faded away" over time  Still, we would never think of deleting those people from the encyclopedia because they are significant to historical and social scholarship.  While the late Ms. Le was no king, her murder will remain very notorious within the Yale community, which virtually guarantees that it will be the subject of scholarly analysis, above and beyond the bare facts of the case.  This is, in fact, already happening in the Connecticut press.  Although it may seem unfair to other victims, murders on Ivy League campuses are very rare, and almost always merit encyclopedic coverage because of the scholarly comment that they generate, in addition to any "news" value.  To delete Ms. Le's article would be a disservice to scholarship. While there may be categories where "faded" notoriety should be considered in AfD analysis, events that are already the subject of scholarly analysis are encyclopedic, whether the public has stopped "talking about them" or not.  Ms. Le's murder is not akin to a reality show finalist; academic minds have taken immediate note of it. Xoloz (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vast coverage, notable event that will remain so long after the newpaper headlines have gone. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Support reaming to Murder of Annie Le.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While there are doubtless many murders in the US each day, this one stands out as it happened at a well-monitored area at a world-famous university, and to someone young but with so much proven success and potential. Sure, this news will be replaced in our minds with something else in a week or two.  But then most news is like that anyway.  Annie Le's story should be documented and retained here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcoins (talk • contribs) 18:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an outside the box murder. This is not your run of the mill home invasion that happens daily in this country. I agree with the change of title as the Event itself is noteable, not the person. However, this event will be a point of discussion on every college campus for quite some time. Whenever people are discussing student safety this event will be brought up. - Sorry if I did anything incorrect. This is the first time I have joined in on a discussion. --vision40 (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be? But how do you know this? And is it verifiable? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep under the new title that focuses on the event not the person, since the event seems to have enough evidence now for notability. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment, Why all the focus on "count"? Some of the content within the deletes make a lot more sense than some of the content within the keeps... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The AfD guidelines make it very clear that this is a discussion, not a simple vote. AfDs are normally kept open for a week unless there is some pressing need to close sooner. Hairhorn (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, many AFDs are often closed early, per such principles as WP:SNOW. —Lowellian (reply) 12:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a commonplace news event (sadly), but not really an encyclopedic topic. Peacock (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are you saying that Natalee Holloway, or all the articles in Category:Murder victims, are not encyclopedic topics either? —Lowellian (reply) 12:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and give time for the story to develop. The sensationalism of the case is exactly what makes it notable. Wikipedia is not a news source, BUT  news consumers come here for reliable, neutral background on issues, be they current events or ancient history. That function is within the scope of the encyclopedia. --Whoosit (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This case has affected me, personally, more than most murder cases. Firstly, the victim was unusually sympathetic in her background, achievements, and approaching wedding. Secondly, this case will likely become ironclad because of the extensive use of technology: video cameras, swipe cards, and DNA evidence, more so than with other cases. Thirdly, I am struck by the methodical professionalism of the police in handling this case. Fourthly, this case may lead to new ideas in campus safety, namely, the closer scrutiny of campus staff. I do think this case will be a hallmark case in campus safety, and perhaps in minority women's issues. Hanuman (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This has affected you personally though as you say... there is nothing wrong with being affected by an event of course but are your emotions and judgement becoming interlinked? Again, perhaps I am misreading that and apologies if I am. But you also use a "might" and "may" argument with nothing definite guaranteed... I have nothing at all against Annie Le and stumbled across this by accident but how after three days can long-term notability be proven in a murder case like this that moves it beyond WP:MEMORIAL (and there are suggestions of personal and emotional attachments) and WP:NOTNEWS? I am not seeing any evidence of this in the keep arguments and this disappoints me after all this time. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  08:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This case is not about campus safety. Only one victim was killed. It's about workplace violence. In the future, I would hope that new ideas would prevent workplace violence.  If it was about campus safety, the school would have told the students to not go out. Esthertaffet (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on guys give the people a break. This should be kept because it hit a chord of sympathy for the young, students, females, people trying to get ahead and make this world a better place, etc. Life is not all cut and dried science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.9.11 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 16 September 2009


 * Weak Keep - But why not try this - improve guidelines for notability of 'current affairs' items. If journalism is the first draft of history, Wikipedia articles of this sort should be the second. There's absolutely nothing wrong with allowing an article to stay in place, if properly categorised, edited, referenced, to see if it really is notable, with the hindsight of some, well, history. Don't forget W'Pedia, unlike printed encyclopaedias is not bound by space limitations. So try thinking on your feet editors, looking to reforming the 'pedia's practices/policies themselves as well as developing articles, and stop wasting everyone's time with your absurd delete-twitch. Please?Jmanooch (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep "Up for deletion, come and join the argument" on an article like this just makes Wikipedia look terrible. We're supposed to be here to create an encyclopedia-- a compendium of information for our readers-- not an argument forum. Santayana said it well-- Those who forget their goal and redouble their efforts. Dekkappai (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's been all over the news for several days now; I'd say it easily passes the threshold for multiple sources. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Infinite notability is not prerequisite to a topic being of encyclopedic value. The Jovin case faded from the mainstream many years ago but still maintains an entry on Wikipedia. It would be logically inconsistent to delete the Annie Le entry. --Aristotle1776 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per national, extended coverage and proper page move. I was not sure about this topic at first, but the continued coverage indicates a more than passing news soundbite. Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (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.