Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Hutchings


 * 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 Delete per WP:NOT and WP:BIO1E as it stands. Tragic story, but does not pass biographical policy.Black Kite 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Cody Hutchings

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

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. It's sad and his muder was covered but news!notability and there's no evidence he was notable apart from being killed. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Canley (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Tragic, but WP is not a memorial. &mdash;Moondyne click! 02:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cody+Hutchings%22 and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Cody+Hutchings%22 for an extensive collection of newspaper articles about this boy and the murder case. Also note that he suffered from Williams syndrome, and this becomes more than just another homicide. People with a disability are more likely to be victims of abuse than other people, and this case demonstrates how such things happen. --Eastmain (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)Comment, I never said it wasn't in the news, but that news!notable. We would not have heard of him if he hadn't been murdered and he's not the only disabled person to have been killed. Still not encyclopedically notable TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete - Unfortunate, tragic, sad etc. However, despite adequate coverage (which is not in dispute), Wikipedia is not a memorial, obituary, or WP:ONEEVENT.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The event of the killing and the debate over sentencing is notable and well-documented. If the event of the killing is more notable than the biography, then that is an argument for renaming the article to Death of Cody Hutchings or Killing of Cody Hutchings, not for deleting the article. But the argument against the move is that it would make the article harder to find. (Note that I am avoiding calling the killing murder because the killer was never convicted of murder.) --Eastmain (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is akin to saying Mary Ann Nichols or any of the other victims of Jack The Ripper shouldn't have their own articles.  It's nonsense.  Plus there is a connection to the Premier's pushing of new laws that explicitly mention the child's name.  That alone should be sufficient to establish notability.  Cel  Talk to me  04:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Mary is talked about in over 250 books and articles in scholarly works like the Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. This is not even close to in the same league - Peripitus (Talk) 07:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 05:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable per WP:RS so passes WP:V and new law pushed by state premier that carries the name "Cody's law". Sting au  Buzz Me...   05:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Bill is called Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill 2007, not "Cody's Law". -- Mark Chovain 06:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable in my view (although sad).  The legislation will not be called "Cody's law" - The Herald Sun states "While the exact title of the legislation is yet to be determined, the family will know it as "Cody's Law" "  If the law is introduced, the death of the child could be incorporated into an article as an explanation to the background of the law.--Matilda talk 06:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into article on new law. This case is important in the context of the new law, but being killed does not make someone notable. -- Mark Chovain 06:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:RS and WP:N are addressed by the multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject. WP:ONEEVENT is addressed by the fact there are two events. 1 - his murder, 2 the affect on Victorian law. Fosnez (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we have a courtesy blanking on closure? -- Mark Chovain 06:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is tragic and dreadful news. But it is also simply news - clearly covered under WP:NOT, not an encyclopaedic topic. Except for minor mentions, and possibly next years anniversary, this will fade from view soon. Delete it - if there is any news interest in 6 months(very very unlikely) then it may have the longevity for an article but at the moment this is clearly covered under WP:NOT and BLP (particularly the sentence If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted...the passing of a law in response does not make this two events)- Peripitus (Talk) 07:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Sad, but not notable (and really, you don't want to be immortalised on Wikipedia for this sort of thing...). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A murder is not inherently notable. Mention of the murder should probably occur on the page for the resulting changes to the law (if any). And yes, a courtesy blanking should be carried out as a matter of course for something like this.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEPHi there, I composed the article not for the sake of memorial or the fact that he was killed-it is about a new law being introduced-the name (for the time being) is unofficially Cody's law, it is still rather new information as the bill and the name has not been introduced-YET. I was intending to place a category in wp about "children murdered by carers/parents" and Cody as well as Daniel Valerio and Jaidyn Leskie articles would be included under this umbrella-no WP is not news, (as someone stated) it is however encyclopedic and relevant to criminal law in Australia. Would it be possible for some of you to perhaps help locate sources of references to cite, rather than delete it? As I think that this is really an important subject as (in Australia, we seem to have a high rate of death in children at the hands of so-called "Carers".--Read-write-services (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, the proposed law is not, and never has been called "Cody's Law" - officially or unofficially. It was a bit of emotive sensationalism thrown in to a paper to sell more copies.  The name of the bill is clearly, "Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill 2007".  If passed, the act of parliament will be called the "Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill Act 2007", which will amend the "Crimes Act 1958", the "Children, Youth and Families Act 2005", the "Coroner's Act 1985", and the "Sentencing Act 1991". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chovain (talk • contribs) 07:41, 18 March, 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Agree it's sad but not notable for Wikipedia and may have been more suited for Wikinews. -- Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unfortunately, being a murder victim is not an uncommon enough event that it makes you notable. WP:NOTNEWS and all that.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete. No worries. Thank you all for your constructive words, however, what is notable about Jaidyn Leskie? if we use your theory, how is it that Jaidyn remains?? to quote the above "unfortunately, being a murder victim is not an uncommon enough event that it makes you notable." I'm sorry I just seem to have lost something here. Thank you all, and Cheers--Read-write-services (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By most of the logic being used here, this article is also a good candidate for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in the same league - Jaidyn's murder and subsequent things has resulted in 3 books specifically on the topic, and is still generating news articles, 10 years after the event - Peripitus (Talk) 01:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Celarnor Talk to me 02:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and that article as been re-written as Murder of Jaidyn Leskie to be in line with WP:BLP1E and highlight the fact that the murder has become symbolic of a number of issues and potential law changes. It's a horse of a different colour TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think about this?--Read-write-services (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an article should be created about the Bill's origin (that it came about after/because of the death of Cody? As per "The name of the bill is clearly, 'Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill 2007'. If passed, the act of parliament will be called the 'Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide) Bill Act 2007', which will amend the 'Crimes Act 1958', the 'Children, Youth and Families Act 2005', the 'Coroner's Act 1985', and the 'Sentencing Act 1991'."
 * The bill itself is not notable. If it passes, we can certainly have an article on the act, and if we have references linking the two, then I think it'd be a great idea. (Note: I've changed "Bill" to "Act" in my original comment, and your quote of it). -- Mark Chovain 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sad, but not notable. (Sorry). Halfmast (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2008 (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.