Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Carole Waugh (2nd nomination)


 * 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   Snow delete. I'm closing this early, but given the sensitive nature of the situation and the very strong consensus here I think this is a justifiable use of WP:IAR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Death of Carole Waugh
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article went through AFD a few weeks ago amid concerns of its notability, but was kept after a debate in which several people (myself included) successfully argued for its retention, and a significant number of news articles were collected to show ongoing coverage. However, since then new information has come to light which suggests a second debate is necessary. Most significantly, at least two users, Jayen466 and SlimVirgin have been contacted by someone with a connection to the subject who has indicated the article contains inaccuracies. I believe that information has now been removed, and although as far as I am aware, nobody has requested the removal of the article itself, concerns have been raised by SlimVirgin and Alison as to its appropriateness. I won't lose any sleep if this debate closes as delete, though I'd hate to be the cause of a shitstorm, so I'm presenting this again for the opinion of the wider Wikipedia community. Over to you. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

* Delete I can see nothing that makes this event notable in any encylopedic sense. The woman went missing; her body was found; people have been arrested for fraud in connection with the murder. Unhappily, dozens of people disappear and are murdered around the world on a daily basis. Let her rest in peace. Bielle (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bielle put it far better than I could. Per WP:NEWSPAPER and per general notability, this article simply shouldn't be here - A l is o n  ❤ 01:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Barring further developments that bring in encyclopedic notability, WP:NOTNEWS appears to apply here. A sadly routine murder case with no wider implications and little to suggest there will be anything significant to write about the case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nomination and comments at previous AFD. I won't repeat those points all over again.  N-HH   talk / edits  08:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment A point I'd like to make (which I touched on at the last AFD, and in one or two previous debates) is that I believe we should consider having some clearer guidelines on articles of this type, if only to have something that defines the difference between high-profile and notable, and when the former becomes the latter. It's a fact that any UK murder case that received more than a couple of days worth of blanket news coverage seems to turn up on Wikipedia pretty quickly, and many of them end up in the AFD pile soon afterwards. I guess it depends on how and when one decides the event has passed a relatively short news cycle. There had been almost three weeks of coverage by the time I created this, which I would argue passes the norm. But in any case, I'd like to open a debate on this topic and whether there's a solution that can help to resolve the endless arguments these articles generate. Give me a day or so to think about this, and I'll open a debate in the appropriate place. I hope you will add your thoughts. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. While this tragic story may be newsworthy, it is not suitably encyclopedia-worthy content. Peacock (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Paul, it was very decent of you to bring the article back to AfD after people expressed concern about it. For a "Death of X" article to be notable enough, there would normally be a public interest issue (public interest in the sense of public well-being), or such intense and protracted news coverage that it would be hard to ignore. The question is whether there is enduring notability – whether the death and its consequences will still be an issue for the public in several years' time. That doesn't seem to be the case here at the moment, so I would say the article fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I did think of speedying it, but wasn't sure if that would be appropriate. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a clear case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, per Bielle, Alison, Jimbo and Slim; and I take my hat off to Paul for taking the initiative.  J N  466  00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * delete WP:NOTNEWS. It's a news story, but where's the encyclopedic relevance?Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I am very uncomfortable with articles about matters that have yet to come to trial because the facts cannot be established. There are restrictions on what can be reported, witnesses have no business relating what they know, and of course those who know most about it, ie the perpetrators, will either have concealed the truth or in some cases deliberately spread misinformation. Even at trial, the rules of evidence may mean that the full picture does not emerge in open court. In any case of disappearance and murder there will be a lot of interest and speculation and the mere fact that secondary sources have covered it does not raise it above the routine. So whilst I am with Paul MacDermott in suggesting a debate about the issues I do think that the threshold for inclusion has to be high and it is not met here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:10, 7 September 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.