Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradford murders


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Bradford murders

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I'm thinking this is a case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I appreciate there's a case to argue that serial killers are inherently notable, but I honestly do not believe this one is. There was one flurry of coverage at the time of the arrest, and a second when he pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Nothing else besides. There's no WP:PERSISTENCE. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: A prior discussion at Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths, made during the height of the news hype, produced an overwhelming keep consensus. I'd suggest that was directly influenced by the temporary press coverage at the time. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The article is well sourced and the extensive coverage in UK national media clearly establishes notability. I do not believe that WP:NEWSPAPER applies, as the article reads to me as a non-sensational summary of a historical event, not a newspaper report about the latest happenings. Dricherby (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly well enough wirtten, but is it notable? That is the question here. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! As per WP:GNG, the case "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (multiple articles in UK national media discussing solely this case). As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, ongoing coverage is not necessary to maintain notability. Dricherby (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, a quick Google News search for "Stephen Griffiths Bradford" gives references this year: an article in the Daily Mail about the Griffiths slashing his wrists in prison (2012-01-22) and a BBC piece about policing prostitution in Bradford, with Griffiths mentioned in the introduction. I think this satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE. Dricherby (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very heavily covered in the media and therefore clearly notable. A quick read of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER will establish that this article does not fall within its scope. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This was the top news story at the time for several days before and after the arrest and trial. This is more than routine coverage, so meets WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NTEMP: If something was ever notable then it's notable forever, and this is not a biography.— S Marshall  T/C 20:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Benchmark for news-based articles is WP:EVENT, and this passes it easily. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per GNG and EVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is about what a serial killer did. I am glad to say that such are rare in UK, so that this is notable.  However the article needs to be recast inot something more than a series of news clips.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2012 (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.