Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caroline Dunsmore


 * 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   no consensus - default to delete. Clearly no consensus here to delete or to keep (not a vote counting exercise). The deletion policy and precedents suggest that deletion is acceptable in BP cases - given the balance between the policy of WP:NOT and the guideline of WP:N, the discussion here lends itself to a default deleition, with no predjudice to recreation if further cases/coverage occur. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was asked a followup to this on my talkpage, and I have copied my more detailed explanation of this close to the talkpage of this AfD (see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Caroline Dunsmore) Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Dunsmore

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There are many, many such people in this world and the mere fact that they have been convicted of serious crimes does not automatically make them notable. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a news story not an encyclopaedic subject in itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  — Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree strongly that every criminal does not deserve a page, but Ms. Dunsmore has been the subject of ongoing controversy for a long time. The article needs more extensive sourcing, which is available from numerous gnews sources, but that does not mean that we should scrap it!  7triton7 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand the heck out of it. It need not be just about Caroline, but about the trial, the repercussions, and the subsequent angst and litigation when her daughter wrote the book. While I agree that Wiki is not the news (despite we loving the news to source articles)... wiki is about notable history once the "news" is old. This is no longer news. It is olds.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is fine for a stub. It is a noteworthy topic, which deserves its own article.  And wikipedia has no limit in space, so if it meets the notable guidelines, or the rules of common sense by group consensus, it gets its own article.   D r e a m Focus  19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This certainly seems notable enough. Depending how the court cases go this might be one large article about all the cases. Certainly we would have this included regardless if it's a stand alone or the first in a longer list. -- Banj e  b oi   00:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:48, 5 March 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.