Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Casey-Lyanne Kearney


 * 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. The strongest arguments-based-on-policy made here were made with respect to WP:NOT (policy) and WP:EVENT (guideline). As a "matter of law" WP:EVENT is an intentional exception to (or, in an equivalent framing, a clarification taking precedence to) WP:GNG (guideline), and as such, I did not find arguments based on GNG to be as persuasive, particularly where it is in conflict with NOT.

As is often the case, the difficulty of the application of the WP:PERSISTENCE clause of EVENT, without the benefit of a time machine, was fairly noted. This is a difficulty raised most eloquently by a couple of the neutral participants. There is no simple solution to the problem of a priori application of PERSISTENCE, in the end, with continuing events, we are forced to rely on our best judgment and experience. --joe deckertalk to me 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Death of Casey-Lyanne Kearney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

It has been nearly two months since the last AfD was closed to allow time for potential evidence of non-routine coverage. Since the initial burst of media coverage, nothing more has happened to establish this event as one of lasting notability and so this article should be deleted per WP:NOT. The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - because of the attention it got initially and beyond that for quite some time. For a while now it has not been any updates as expected before trial and further developments concerning that but we cant deny its initial extensive coverage. Also per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per the nominator - clearly out of en Wikipedia project scope - You  really  can  22:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain. How is it clearly out of en wikipedia project scope? When considering guidelines and not just a personal opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - By the close of the last AFD there was already sufficient coverage and we still have the trial to come. As mentioned previously coverage wasn't limited geographically to England, but instead multiple reliable sources from Netherlands, the Republic of Ireland and even Australia are available, not to mention all parts of the UK. Therefore we have a diverse set of sources of considerable geographical scope, all of which are reliable. Coverage does go into reasonable depth, for example highlighting various events commemorating the deceased and the charity to be set up in her name. There is a lack of coverage recently but then we're not yet at the trial stage so it will surely occur then. I also expect there are limitations on what can be reported pre-trial, or that sources are at least being cautious in not reporting too much. Those searching for sources should also be aware of the differing names used, with some coverage using "Casey Kearney" and others the full name. Notability is enhanced by the unusual nature of the crime - in the UK it's rare for a child of such an age to be attacked and killed by a complete stranger, and murders of females are significantly rarer than those of males. Missing white woman syndrome means such cases are given disproportionate attention, leading people to wrongly believe such cases are far more common than in reality.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article makes no mention to why this murder is any more significant that the countless number of murders every day. This appears to have received lots of news coverage, as WP:NOT says While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Mt  king  (edits)  01:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * delete as per WP:EVENT which trumps WP:GNG. Wikipedia does not report every single unfortunate death reported in the media. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No I agree Wikipedia does not report on every single unfortunate death.. But it does report on encyclopaedic significant deaths such as this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Damn. There are several articles from reliable sources with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there are, it appears to have been a very newsworthy story, however what's the encyclopaedic significance in this crime? None is claimed in the article. Mt  king  (edits)  07:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A crime that gets this kind of attention from the start is of encyclopaedic significance.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ? Mt  king  (edits)  08:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily meets the GNG.  Non-routine coverage in BBC, Sun, Sky News, others.  Plenty of references.    Th e S te ve   04:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not the criterion here, all stabbing deaths of children tend to get national coverage. The WP:EVENT has to be persistent. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that something that meets the GNG should be deleted anyway? Really?  Th e S te ve   06:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies. However, this story is still far from complete.  There is a court appearance on 10 May.  Whether this is the start of a trial or that is to come later is not clear from the article.  I would like to await events before we finally consider the article's fate.  Neverhteless, I expect that we will end off deleting it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Edison's nicely put and persuasive argument. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC) - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
 * Delete or incubate. Ultimately, this comes down to WP:EVENT, and this is lacking in duration. The coverage hasn't really gone beyond a standard news cycle, and whilst it might crop up again when the case comes to trial, that's very much WP:CRYSTAL. Is there any way of transferring this information to Wikinews? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Lots of coverage, even international coverage, does not mean the coverage is anything other than routine. Not only is the duration of coverage an issue, but also the depth of coverage. The sources provided basically say "this crime occurred" and detail how it occurred, but give nothing of any significance beyond that. Reports on the crime epitomize routine news coverage.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. There's undoubtedly coverage, no question there. But is that coverage routine? I don't know, do crimes of this type usually get international coverage? That's a big red flag to me, seeing how broad the coverage is. But time is also a factor as well, and it is clear that the coverage did not persist through multiple news cycles. So I'm stuck on the fence here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The best way of handling this would be too let the article run its course trough the "trial part" of the criminal case and then re-evalute the notability if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing at all on the horizon about this crime that is going to increase its long term notability - You  really  can  19:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And what facts do you base that on? Besides your personal opinion...--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a red flag. The international coverage was sparse and no different from the national coverage in that it just said a crime occurred and how it occurred. A red flag for an event lacking notability is when reports only say what happened and the only reactions reported are what you would expect in any tragic story.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, other users see it differently. And that is why I am questioning in were the harm lies in letting this article run it's course trough trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm neutral, too, per Ultra. I see no way to make a determination whether this is notable or not.  We'd have to wait until at least the May 10 hearing. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → B  music  ian  00:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article fails to explain how this is remotely interesting or important. Yes, a girl was murdered, but that is the sum of it. Murder is a leading cause of death in humans, unfortunately. Speciate (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Murder is the leading cause of death in humans? please.. check your facts. Please explain what guidelines you are taking into consideration here beyond your personal opinion on murder articles in general (as it seems).--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your biased eyes read the where I typed a. Speciate (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment are just spiteful.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Incubate - I don't feel that this goes beyond WP:EVENT, but the argument that the court case may swing it into notability is a good one. WP:INCUBATE it for now.  "Girl got stabbed" and "suspect in custody" is not enough to make it encyclopedic.  An example of inclusion would be Murder of Victoria Stafford.  - Pmedema (talk) 07:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To incubate it would not benefit the article when 10 May comes around. Secondly it passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME and that is sufficient reasons to let the article stay on for re-evaluation in a months time or similar. I have to wonder in were the harm lies in not deleting or incubate it now, but instead let it run its course trough the trial.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To delete it would benefit Wikipedia, since the murder of one girl that only matters locally is not worth the bits and pixels it takes to have an article on it. Speciate (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spiteful comment. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * May 10th, eh? So just relist it one more time, and see which way the chips fall in a week.  Huzzah, doing nothing is the perfect solution!   Th e S te ve   06:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP is not the news, not a sensationalist tabloid, and not a forum for crime voyeurs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually WP is built on news. Basically all articles are based on news actually. Your reasoning seem to be that you dont like crime articles in general without focusing on why this particular article is non-notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Here is evidence of lasting coverage,, . Have more if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Victim's age make it notable together with unusual circumstances. Let's see how this pads out over the next few months. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:06, 13 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.