Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Tia Sharp


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Death of Tia Sharp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The initial no consensus AfD indicated issues of WP:RECENTISM, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. A Google News search today seems to show that those assessments were accurate, as there is nothing of note after the initial flurry of coverage. This is clearly not going to meet persistence, and much of the speculation in the keep votes as to future notability has come to nothing. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * delete another sad but non notable child murder. not sure why WP fills up with these. fails WP:EVENT and WP:VICTIM as well. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * as you want me to basically write an essay about my reasonings at AfDs, the least you could do is to be a bit more precise then "fails...".--BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * how about constantly recycling "keep meets WP:GNG" with no specific reference to the article in question. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like recycling the "Gnews hit" argument without specific references to the hits, and Gnews is not even a reliable tool for coverage of news. And always questioning every single Keep !vote in certain discussion... but not questioning any Delete !votes no matter how weak. But hey who is keeping a count here..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm yet to find a delete voter who votes 7 different articles in 10 minutes in identical style, if you find someone doing that for keep or delete let me know. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * google news not reliable? Then why does it appear on the AfD template. WP:GOOGLE says "Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy.". LibStar (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enormous and prolonged coverage in national media. Not an everyday case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - doesnt seem to fail WP:PERSISTENCE. as user Necrothesp states it has recieved enormous and prolonged coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like this AfD is part of a mass-AfD by the nominating user. If thatis good or bad I let you all decide.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This was a heavily reported murder. Due to the slowness of criminal proceedings, we still await a conviction.  I do not think we are in a position to judge the merits of the article until the the story is complete.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a certain amount of WP:NTEMP has been reached here to be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Lots of significant coverage on this. Meets WP:GNG. Why do we have to have these debates about every single murder case article? If only we had some proper guidelines it might happen less frequently. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The story is not even yet over. -- KC9TV 03:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * [N]ot a reason for keeping. There was a spike of coverage in august. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But the related and similar example of the precedent set at and case of Articles_for_deletion/Disappearance_of_April_Jones says otherwise. -- KC9TV 07:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a time-honoured tradition of people creating new articles about criminal cases receiving media coverage, and then someone coming along and adding an AfD template. This is another example, but it does have enough notability to be worth keeping pending a trial. Paul MacDermott's essay is worth reading, as it could help to prevent this sort of time-wasting AfD.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 04:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, see both Notability_(people) and User:Paul MacDermott/Articles concerning criminal acts (noted above). Bearian (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:VAGUEWAVE. zero explanation how a guideline and an editor's invented criteria is met. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Widely reported in the UK at the time of the disappearance (and coverage will no doubt pick up for any trials). BUT there is absolutely zero evidence of lasting significance or notability, as correctly observed in the nomination. The notability guidelines are clear, despite suggestions that this kind of case is complicated or a 50:50 issue and the apparent fact that some editors like being amateur crime & courts reporters. From the various sections and subpages of the guidelines, including, at no5, from WP:CRIME ...
 * "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance"
 * "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act"
 * "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it"
 * "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article"
 * "Articles about criminal acts ... particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources"
 * Taken together, the above rather clearly show, first, that we cannot assume notability based on basic contemporaneous media reporting of a tragic incident. Nor has any evidence been presented in any of the above "Keep" comments, or in the article itself, to suggest we have passed the threshold required to rise above that assumption of non-notability, eg in terms of lasting significance.  N-HH   talk / edits  09:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it clearly does meet our most important determiner of notability, the General Notability Guidelines! In addition, most crimes do not have the massive national coverage this one has had. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This entire area needs clearer guidelines, otherwise we would always have to wait until after a court verdict to mention any ongoing case or proceedings. I believe that this article will have long term notability, and do not propose yo-yo deletion and recreation.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 10:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but GNG is the broad headline list of bullet points that briefly set out the basic principles re notability. It explains the bare minimum requirements of notability and is only going to make sense when read with the more specific detail that follows underneath and in the more context-specific sub-pages. Saying "article X meets GNG" – even if it genuinely does, however superficially – isn't the whole answer in every case. I agree that we could do with some more specific guidelines on deaths and murders such as this one, but nonetheless, as noted above, what we do have at the moment is pretty clear in how it qualifies and expands on GNG. It's simply that some people choose to close their eyes to that and obfuscate the issue by claiming that "the rules aren't clear", simply because they like these kinds of articles; and because they've forgotten that WP is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a RECORD OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED or a round-up of media reports on criminal acts and court cases.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Wikipedia has no rules. It has guidelines and policies, which are not the same thing at all, since they are open to wide interpretation. Secondly, of course it isn't meant to cover everything that's ever happened, but it does cover incidents that have had enormous coverage in the national press of a major country. This is not the average run of the mill murder that was covered by a few lines in the national press when it happened and another few when it came to trial. This is a case that was reported in huge detail by every major British media outlet for days on end. That coverage makes it notable and it would be ridiculous if we didn't have an article on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no, given that no one seems to be disputing that the case had coverage, the point at issue is exactly about whether that coverage makes it notable or not. Simply asserting it as a given, again, and characterising any disagreement with that assumption as leading to a "ridiculous" result doesn't make the claim any more correct or refute anything I've said. I've explained why even current WP guidelines – which I never referred to as rules in my own words anyway, not that such semantics have anything to do with the substantive point – seem to count against that conclusion. You will also surely have noted that I did not simply say WP is not meant to cover everything – which was rather obviously a piece of hyperbole, not a point awaiting specific rebuttal – but that it's not meant to be a round-up of media reports on criminal acts and court cases; however prominent those reports might have been for a brief and passing moment in time. It isn't, despite your suggestion to the contrary when you talk about what WP supposedly does do, and no one here or in any of the multiple related discussions of this sort has explained why it should be or where policies or guidelines require it to be.  N-HH   talk / edits  16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See User:Paul MacDermott/Articles concerning criminal acts. It is unrealistic to demand an exact knowledge of the outcome of a case before creating an article. Serious cases often take many months to come to court, but that does not make them non-notable.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's Paul's take on these things, which he's entitled to, but it's not part of WP policy. And I'm not demanding exact knowledge of the outcome of any trial, I'm simply saying there's no clear evidence of notability as we speak, beyond a flurry of contemporaneous news reports around the time of the disappearance and death (and noting that the media will no doubt resurface with some basic court reporting when the trial comes up). Are you saying that this event isn't yet notable but might be, depending on what happens in the trial, and arguing to keep on that speculative basis?  N-HH   talk / edits  09:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we can bend the arguments in any way that fits our own agendas N-HH. But let's wait and see what the outcome of this AfD is. In the end it is community consensus that is important, not to "win the discussion" too often user's seem to forget that AfD's are not a competition.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but everyone, on either "side", is going to try and persuade people to their view and/or would prefer the outcome to match their analysis (and I'm not "bending" arguments, I'm quoting from our guidelines). And to take this the other way, community consensus is not about votes, or comparing the number of people who simply say "meets GNG" to the numbers who simply say "does not meet GNG" among the small number who happen to turn up at each individual AFD debate (often the same faces as well when it comes to these crime ones). It's about understanding and applying policy and guidelines – which themselves have been subect to much wider and longer community discussion and which attempt to set some kind of consistent standard – and remembering that we are talking about an encyclopedia, not a round-up of stories that happen to have attracted passing media interest. Even consensus, whether local or more general, can't override that basic pillar.  N-HH   talk / edits  13:34, 17 November 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.