Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis


 * 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 wasNo Consensus clearly there are some still unresolved issues with this article while I see a leaning towards deletion within the commentary its not a clear consensus. The issue of notability vs newsworthy, is unresolved in the short term. This result should be taken as an opportunity to clean the article up and establish that it is notable and not just newsworthy. Gnangarra 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable murder / murder victim. Press coverage and references to the same do not notability make. At best, an example of Missing white woman syndrome. I understand there may have been AfDs for prior related articles; there does not appear to have been one for this yet. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Jessie Davis
 * Articles for deletion/Bobby Cutts, Jr.

Section 1

 * Neutral - ...pretty complicated. There is no such thing as "non-notable murder/murder victim". Do you think one person killed is different from another person killed? --- Hirohisat 01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment JFK versus an unfortunate but otherwise non-notable victim of domestic violence? There are many thousands of murder victims each year. To what extent are any notable? What in this case is the claim to notability? --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Strong delete This belongs at Wikinews, not Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete- newsworthy but not notable. Also someone should consider changing the name to something more NPOV, remember innocent until proven guilty. ChrisLamb 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The murder is not in question as much as the identity of the killer. We can say that someone was murdered, but we shouldn't say who the murderer is *as such* until a party is convicted. (Moved.) -- Charlene 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A big part of the problem with the "murder" part of the title is that we have no idea what the defense theory of the case will be because of this hysterical rush to create an article here. It very well may be that their theory will revolve around an accidental death or some sort of death that would be considered less than murder. I'd have to say the title is objectionable now that the issue has been raised. Disappearance and death would be far preferable. Erechtheus 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "murder" part of the title is appropriate because, per the State of Ohio, this is a murder case. Whether or not someone gets convicted of murder per se is another question. (JosephASpadaro 03:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Even assuming your statement about what the state of Ohio thinks is accurate, that does not mean this in fact was a murder. Until there is a convicted murderer, the use of the term murder is not accurate. Erechtheus 03:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, according to your logic, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were never murdered -- correct? The Black Dahlia was never murdered -- correct?  JonBenet Ramsey was never murdered -- correct?  Pro wrestler Chris Benoit's wife and son were not murdered this week -- correct?  Just because there is no murder conviction in no way means that there was no murder.  P.S.  Have you ever heard the term "unsolved murder"?  Well, it happens just about every day of the week.  Clearly, there is no conviction (hence, the "unsolved") and, nonetheless, there is a murder.  Your idea that the term murder requires an actual murder conviction is ignorant at best, preposterous at worst.   (JosephASpadaro 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. The issue here is WP:BLP, so Chris Benoit doesn't really have anything to do with the issue. You can reason it's extremely likely the Black Dahlia doesn't, either. You can't say that it's a murder for sure until you have a murderer for sure. It's less important once the person you think is the murderer is dead for our purpoes, but the point still holds. You may want to consider looking up the definition of murder some time if you believe this to be ignorant. It's a term of art with a specific meaning. Erechtheus 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I find your comments very interesting indeed. Please do me a favor and address the questions that I have posed below.  Please provide replies to these specific questions.  (In other words, don't answer questions that are not being asked.  And don't change the wording of my questions to make some other point.)  Here are my specific questions: Are you claiming that Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were not murdered?  Are you claiming that the Black Dahlia was not murdered?  Are you claiming that JonBenet Ramsey was not murdered?  Are you claiming that Benoit's wife and son were not murdered?  Are you claiming that there is no such thing as an unsolved murder?  I am sincerely baffled by your belief that a murder cannot exist without a convicted murderer.  And here's a hypothetical:  John Smith walks into a McDonald's and murders ten people.  He immediatetly commits suicide thereafter (or is killed by police or by someone else in the McDonald's) and is therefore never tried (much less convicted) of murder.  Is it your contention that a murder (rather, ten murders) did not occur?  Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
 * You're not cross examining me, and you don't make the rules of this debate. I answered your queries to the extent they merited an answer within the context of this debate. Murder is a legal term of art, and it requires there be a convicted murderer. I would submit that a more appropriate term for what you're getting at would be homicide, but I would suggest that in this case, even that term would be inappropriate at present. Erechtheus 00:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you are unwilling to answer reasonably posed questions. My questions above (JonBenet, Nicole Simpson, unsolved murders, etc.) are reasonable questions.  Your refusal to answer them speaks for itself.  I am well aware that murder is a legal term of art.  It requires premeditation, intent, and the death of a human.  It does not require a murder conviction.  How can any prosecutor present a murder case if one of the elements of the crime (for which he is seeking a conviction) is that it requires the conviction itself?  That is simply laughable, not to mention logically impossible.  Please cite any state or federal statute that defines (and requires, as you claim) one of the elements of the crime of murder to be "conviction of a murderer."  So, if I am sitting in my home and someone breaks into my house and assaults me ... I have not been "assaulted" until the person is apprehended and convicted?  So, if the perpetrator is never apprehended, I was not in fact assaulted - right?  If a bank robber is never apprehended (or convicted), then that bank was never robbed - correct?  Laughable.  I am sure that you will provide no meaningful reply, but will redirect the issue to some red herring.  But, if there is a state statute that supports your claim, I would love to see the citation -- and if such existed, I am sure that you would be happy to provide the citation.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 01:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
 * This isn't about what the law is -- it's about recognizing that murder exists as a legal concept and therefore requires adjudication. If you haven't noticed, Wikipedia is not a court. Look at the sources for the article. Do they say this is a murder? No. They may say it's a suspected murder or even a likely murder. They may say somebody was charged with murder. They will say it's a killing and possibly even a homicide. Ask yourself why that is and why it should be any different here at Wikipedia.Erechtheus 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as I suspected, you did not answer my questions and you did not provide any citations. In one breath, you claim: "murder is a legal term of art" (notice the word "legal") and in the next breath, you claim: "this isn't about what the law is."  A crime does not NOT exist simply because there is no adjudication.  And no crime requires its conviction as an element of that crime.  Crimes can and do exist, independent of whether or not they are adjudicated.  Example: a woman is raped, she fears having to testify in court and she fears reprisal from her rapist, the prosecutor has no case without the victim's testimony, thus the case is not adjudicated.  Just becuase the case was not adjudicated, does not in any way mean that a crime did not in fact occur.  Crimes are not adjudicated for many, many reasons (lack of evidence, lack of a suspect, the suspect is dead and cannot be prosecuted, the suspect is out of the jurisdiction and cannot be prosecuted, etc.).  Your claim that adjudication is required to satisfy the elements of a crime is absurd and makes no sense.  According to your logic, no crime can exist unless (a) it is solved; (b) the perpetrator is identified; (c) the perpetrator is tried; and (d) the perpetrator is in fact convicted.  If ALL of these things do not occur, it is your contention that no crime occurred.  That is absurd.  In your faux-legal world, then, it is impossible to have an unsolved crime.  Because, you claim, the very definition of crime requires that it be solved and someone convicted.  So, once again, can you please provide any citation that supports your claim that conviction is required for a murder to exist?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 01:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
 * You have managed to completely miss the question. The question is when Wikipedia can say that a crime has happened. They can say that safely only when there has been adjudication. Note that this is all that is relevant to this debate in this forum. Erechtheus 01:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not missed the question at all. Early on in this thread, you made the claim that "[u]ntil there is a convicted murderer, the use of the term murder is not accurate."  I then disputed your claim and asked some reasonable questions and hypotheticals to support my dispute.  You never addressed them to my satisfaction, using various techniques to deflect this issue.  In any event, this thread has become circular.  You now assert that Wikipedia can only claim that a crime occurred after an adjudication of that crime.  (This is the semantic equivalent of all that had previously been discussed -- and disputed by me -- in this thread.)  So, as I stated earlier (in another semantic version): you would assert that Wikipedia can NOT claim that Nicole Simpson was murdered.  You would assert that Wikipedia can NOT claim that JonBenet Ramsey was murdered.  You would assert that there is no such thing in Wikipedia as an "unsolved murder."  You would assert that Wikipedia can NOT claim that a bank was robbed until and unless the robber was caught and convicted.  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  And I find that absurd.  Now, as an example:  Let us go to the JonBenet Ramsey article and seek consensus on the following issue - Should the term "murder" be excised from the JonBenet Ramsey article due to the fact that no murderer was ever convicted and, thus, Wikipedia can NOT make the claim that a murder in fact occurred (i.e., Wikipedia can NOT make the claim that JonBenet was murdered).  I would be very interested to see what consensus is reached on that proposal.  This is all quite rhetorical, because I am sure that you and I both know exactly what the consensus would conclude.  And, my point is that applies also to Jessie Davis as much as JonBenet Ramsey (Nicole Simpson, etc.).  As a further point, how is it that Wikipedia manages to "get away with" calling the Ramsey case a murder case?  Calling the Nicole Simpson case a murder case?  As of just this week, calling the Benoit incident a "murder/suicide"?  How can Wikipedia get away with all that?  Where is the furor and the uproar?  Why is there no uproar/consensus to change that terminology?  In fact, why has it not even been raised as an issue at all?  Because it is very clear to anyone that JonBenet was murdered, Nicole Simpson was murdered, the Black Dahlia was murdered, Benoit's wife and son were murdered, etc. -- independent of the fact of whether or not a murderer was in fact convicted in each case.  In other words, Wikipedia's use of the term "murder" does NOT require an actual murderer to be convicted.  And this disputes your contention that Wikipedia does, in fact, require a conviction in order to refer to a murder.  So, in all of those cases, Wikipedia (and the rest of the world, by the way) has legitimately used the term "murder" without objection and without raising an eyebrow.  You made the assertion that a murder requires a convicted murderer, and I disputed that assertion.  And you never adequately addressed my disputes.  Or really even addressed them at all.  And I suppose that, at this point, you will not.  Which, of course, speaks for itself.    PS -- I am still waiting for that statutory citation.  Can you provide it ... or at least address why you choose not to provide it?  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Another thought -- your argument, in essence, boils down to this: "Well, geez, we can't use the word "murder" because, golly gee, the suspected murderer himself claims that there was no murder." Do you not see the irony in that?  Again, I suspect that I will not get a direct answer from you on this question ... and/or that you will deflect the issue.  (JosephASpadaro 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Another thought – To illustrate the lunacy of your position … Wikipedia can NOT make the statement that JFK was assassinated … am I correct? Last time I checked, assassination of a sitting US President is a crime … Last time I checked, there were no convictions in the JFK case … So, according to your argument, Wikipedia can NOT make the statement that JFK was assassinated.  Just wanted to see if I understand clearly what you are saying.  (Do I?)  And just want to point out the sheer lunacy of your argument for other readers.  Or perhaps – if there is consensus – we can propose that all references on Wikipedia delete the term “assassination” when referring to the JFK case.  Are you going to make that proposal?  I’d be interested to see the results and the consensus of that debate / discussion.  Please let me know what you think we should do about Wikipedia’s inappropriate (according to you) use of the term “assassination” when referring to the JFK case.  Thanks!  (JosephASpadaro 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
 * For simplicity sake, let's see if we can actually reach consensus here. Can Wikipedia report somebody was murdered without a reliable source saying so? The answer seems clear to me. What's the reliable source here? Can you actually give us a cite where the state of Ohio says without any doubt this was a murder? Erechtheus 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Truly, you make me laugh. With a straight face, you are proposing that "we reach consensus here."  However, throughout the course of our conversation thread: (a) I have asked you a million questions and you have not answered any of them, despite the fact that all of the questions were reasonable and relevant; (b) In fact, you have virtually ignored nearly all of my questions; (c) You have employed various techniques to divert, deflect, avoid, and convolute the issue at hand; (d) You deftly (or so you think) attempt to constantly re-frame the issue at hand, in such a way that the issue (in your mind) is constantly fluid and dynamic; (e) Despite your behavior, you expect me ( ... I presume ... ) to answer your questions; (f) All of your replies are non-responsive; (g) Your underlying arguments are legally, logistically, and logically impossible and non-sensical; (h) You clearly do not know how to appropriately engage in discussion / debate;  (i) You are either unwilling or unable to participate in any meaningful or intelligent discourse; (j) etc. etc. etc.  And -- despite these 10 factors -- you propose that we reach consensus.  You are a piece of work, apparently not residing on the planet Earth, and it has become apparent to me that -- despite my giving you the benefit of the doubt -- no meaningful or intelligent dialogue, discussion, or debate can or will result.  You are unable and/or unwilling to constructively participate in such.  Furthermore, to answer your questions: (1) I will repeat for the one billionth time, Wikipedia does NOT need an actual murder conviction in order to state that a murder in fact occurred; (2) The State of Ohio law enforcement officials -- who, by the way, are the experts in Ohio law enforcement issues -- have clearly stated (to a Court, to a judge, to all of the people of the State of Ohio) that this is a murder case.  (3)  I find it quite humorous that all of the sudden, out of the blue, you have now re-framed the issue to assert that "a murder must have occurred without any doubt" ... a standard that is not only impossible, but higher than that required in criminal cases.  But, you figured that you would just throw that in, knowing that all of your other arguments were rather weak and implausible.  And -- once again -- your unwillingness to meaningfully respond to reasonable and relevant questions (i.e., to dodge them, avoid them, convolute them, constantly reframe them, etc.) speaks volumes.  As experience has shown here, I certainly do not expect to get any meaningful, intelligent, or responsive reply from you.  Yet ... you propose that you and I reach a consensus.  Not only unrealistic, but truly unbelievable. (JosephASpadaro 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Strong keep, because considerable headline national news coverage by all major media outlets and it's still ongoing, i.e. should be given a chance to grow. Right now, people will want to look information on this individual.  Maybe years from now the "masses" might not care, but there is definite interest now.  --164.107.222.23 02:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete This would be more appropriate for Wikinews, or even Wikitabloid, than Wikipedia. We honestly don't need an article on every nine days' wonder that grips the United States. I wonder if we even have an article on the storms that killed 230 people, each of whom was as real as Jessie Davis, in Karachi this week. -- Charlene 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is notable news but wikipedia is not a place to cover the news. We are an encyclopedia.--†Sir James Paul† 02:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a much better rewrite of the original article on Jessie Davis, whose AfD was extremely contentious. This topic has received *tons* of coverage from reliable second-hand sources; although I understand the arguments for why some do not want such material in Wikipedia, until consensus is achieved to change the fundamental definition of notability, she is clearly notable. Evouga 02:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a news service, it is an encyclopedia. I agree that it is well written, but that reason is not a good enough reason to keep it. Thanks for your time.--†Sir James Paul† 03:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is. Evouga 03:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It also states Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.. --Ozgod 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know that it will be a short burst of coverage? It's a current event and thus, the media attention is still going strong.  I guarantee you the coverage of this case is going to be just like Laci Peterson.  The circumstances are almost identical.  Pregnant woman murdured, baby dies, man in her life is charged with murder.  The coverage on this is going to be hot and heavy all the way through the trial, some books are going to be written, and there will be a TV movie. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:Crystal Ball. --Ozgod 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to my opinions. Maybe to an article, but surely not to my own opinion. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already had two weeks of ongoing coverage. It's gotten dozens of hours of cable news devoted to it, dozens of newspaper stories on every development.  It's had about as much ongoing coverage as possible.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to sound callous, again, but as sumnjim stated: ...the coverage of this case is going to be just like Laci Peterson. The circumstances are almost identical... If it is as identical to the circumstances to Laci Peterson do we need to have a similar article? Do we need an article for every man that kills his white pregnant wife? What is it in particular that makes this case different than the rest? How many of these cases have come and gone in the past, got huge coverage, and then disappeared from the public eye? --Ozgod 17:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that Laci Peterson is better than Jessie Davis? There are many many many murders every year. There are many many husband kills wife murders ever year.  There are not many many nationally reported, shove the news down your throat, 24/7 updates, police officer kills mistress and baby murders every year.  This is not just a run of the mill murder.  It's big news. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Laci Peterson is not better than Jesse Davis, that's a silly argument. Laci Peterson is notable to historians because her case lead to a new law concerning unborn victims of violence. Zerbey 20:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Her article claims her murder "was the subject of one of the most discussed missing-person cases in United States history". That is a claim to notability. No such claim is made in the current article. Please don't try to put (stupid) words into my mouth. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, btw. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Well the text you quote above, doesn't have any sources to back that up, so I guess I could put that up on Jessie Davis' page as well, then you'd be happy. I feel it's wrong to say Murder A is notable and Murder B is not notable when the circumstances surrounding both of these murders are nearly identical.  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that this has been all over the news, but wikipedia is not a news service. It is better for us to have a section about this on both the Bobby Cuts Jr. and Jessie Davis article.--†Sir James Paul† 03:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my same argument on the original AfDs: Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Just one random murder out of thousands that has happened to be used to fill time on newscasts.  It belongs on Wikinews. Resolute 03:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. This is still a developing event. Maybe if this is still in the news in six months, this will be notable enough. Until then, it's just one tragic death among thousands. eaolson 03:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, noteworthiness of the event to anyone else than the few people involved is not apparent in any way.
 * Keep There are headlines about this on most of the news outlet, this article is definitely notable, as it is a victim,and all victims are notable, at least I would think so.4.154.251.123 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Headlines = Wikinews. Yet another murder victim isn't notable unless, perhaps, it serves to change something in our society.  This one isn't likely to do so, and we aren't a crystal ball.  Rklawton 04:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete there doesn't appear to be anything special about these murders to make them notable. --Haemo 05:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I left a comment on the original, but now I feel deletion is the better option. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and we can not memorialize every Missing White Woman who makes the morning news. There is nothing in her disappearance or death that makes her exceptionally notable. Look to Kitty Genovese or Chandra Levy or Elizabeth Smart who had unique disappearances/deaths. Not to sound crude, although there is no other way for it to sound, but this appears to be a routine kidnapping/murder. Nothing has occured in this case to make it exceptionally notable. Ozgod 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She made national news, not just the local "morning news." The current test for notability is coverage in secondary sources, not a vague conception of "uniqueness," and there is no need to deviate from policy in this case. Neither WP:MEMORIAL, nor a distaste for article on "Missing White Wom[e]n", are valid criteria for deletion on their own, once the definition of notability has been satisfied. Evouga 08:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * She made national news is not a criteria that I recognise. Every US soldier dead in Iraq has made national news. What is notable about this victim? No case - beyond the mawkish interest of the media in DWW - has been made. How many of the thousands of USians that get killed as a result of your interesting gun laws do you want to add to Wikipedia? She is not notable. The murder was not notable. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * She made national news is the very criteria given in WP:notability. Evouga 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not, except in the most simple-minded consideration of the guidelines. We long ago established, in respect of the 911 victims, that worldwide saturation press coverage was not sufficient to make these people notable enough to have their own articles. Meanwhile five of six people were murdered in the UK last weekend. Should they each get an article because they made it to the national press? The US had 18,209 murders last year. We have a resource for articles on these. It is called Wikinews. Abstracting every story from the AP wires is so not the way to go. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 *  Strong Keep this is up for nomination again!? the decision was to rename it, which it was. this is a perfect article the way it is, no need to delete, most certainly notable. if this page gets deleted, than so does Laci Peterson's, and all the other notable victims of murder. BigCoop 06:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There was no decision; it was withdrawn as the nomination was considered incorrect once the title had been changed. Obviously though the article is still not notable enough for wikipedia, and with the only other Keep's being from IP's this is being a snowball deletion. -- Jimmi Hugh 12:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Newsworthy, but not encyclopedia material. If there were social or cultural issues that were brought forth by national media attention, a murder such as this might be encyclopedic; but I see little that distinguishes this case from the multitudes of other tragic murder cases. Deli nk 12:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, There are numerous statements being made here that the topic is not notable, but no one can say why it doesn't meet our guideline on the subject. This is a high-profile murder case, and high profile criminal cases all have unique facts of the case, which this article outlines.  All of the arguments being made against it here are a matter of subjective distaste.  I think the case has been disproportionately covered in the media relative to its importance, but it's not appropriate to exclude it entirely.  We're being entirely appropriate by presenting a neutral description of the pertinent facts of the case.  What we have here is anti-recentism, where the notability of present events is being dismissed in ignorance of guidelines and policy, in favor of some idea that coverage of current events is automatically inappropriate news.  We're not news, and the article is not a news report, it's an encyclopedic summary of the facts of a case with wide media coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Definitely disagree with the nominator. This this is getting daily newspaper attention.  Definitely notable.  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Press coverage does make notability -- the definition of notability at WP:N says so. JulesH 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is sad that a missing woman turned up murdered, and that she was pregnant. But she was eminently non-notable before being murdered, and Wikipedia is neither a memorial site to write a nice article about people who got murdered, or a true crime story archive, or a newspaper. There is nothing encyclopedic about some non-notable person disappearing and being found dead. It happens millions of times a year. Since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and it is not "MissingWhiteWomanPedia" this may be deleted even though she was a missing white woman who gained some coverage on the news channels, and even though the story appeared in several newspapers. There is also the WP:BLP consideration for her surviving 2 year old who may have witnessed the crime. Edison 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why is this topic being debated again? Didn't we already have this very same discussion when the article was simply entitled "Jessie Davis"?  In any event, I agree with what Night Gyr says above.  The question presented is whether or not this event is notable.  So ... is the Jessie Davis murder case "notable"? Per WP:notability: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." ... So, (1) significant coverage? yes; (2) sources? yes; (3) reliable? yes; and (4) independent of the subject? yes. Since the Jessie Davis murder case satisfies all four of the notability guidelines, what exactly is in dispute here? WP:notability further defines these four criteria as: (1) "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. (2) "Sources" should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. (3) "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. (4) "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Furthermore, WP:notability states: "Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article." So, once again ... what is in dispute here? Which of these four criteria is not being satisfied? (JosephASpadaro 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing (?) Comment it is being discussed because about half of the people who have responded here think it is a non notable event - perhaps despite WP:N. As the other half find for the article, I concede that this AfD has run its course with a likely keep outcome. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * I understand why it is being discussed, generally. My question is why is it being discussed again?  (JosephASpadaro 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
 * I noted the "AfDs for prior related articles", but was not (and am not) aware that this is a rename of a pre-existing article. If it is, then its talk page should have listed the AfD associated with it. In the absence of that talk-page history, the article appears not to have been to AfD before this nom. Having looked at the related noms, I see they were withdrawn, not determined. So now we have a chance to determine. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Because the rug was pulled out from under the first deletion debates? Renaming an article does not count as an automatic "keep".  While the attempt at a rewrite was fair, imo, the original AfD was closed out of process, as it is rather ridiculous to close an AFD with many delete votes as "nomination withdrawn" simply because it was renamed.  The only reason I didn't complain was that I was certain that the article would again be up on AfD almost immediately. Resolute 00:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The concerns were addressed. The nominator withdrew.  More happened than just a renaming. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously they were not, as here we are again. The withdrawl of the nominator became irrelevant as the delete votes piled up.  addressing one delete vote does not constitute addressing them all.  It's no biggie though.  The article will get it's full consideration on this AfD. Resolute 04:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: I saw it on the news. it is very sad for sure. UnknownMan 01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 2

 * Delete as not notable. News coverage should at best be used to verify that a person is notable; it does not, in itself, create notability.  If being murdered makes one notable, all verifiable murder cases are notable, not just the ones which have, by random chance, become the news item of the week.  I don't believe that people whose sole "claim to fame" is having been killed are notable.  See Notability. TomTheHand 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Missing White Woman Syndrome, it's a sad story and happens every day, just because Nancy Grace is spending every second she can talking about something it doesn't make it encyclopedic. Zerbey 19:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Treaty As mentioned previously, this AfD seems almost evenly divided. From an objective viewpoint I can see how this article was created too soon and despite that nominated for AfD too soon as well. For the interim let's leave the article and revisit it in 2 - 3 months to a clearer, more objective view of the topic. The incident is too recent for any retrospective views on how important and notable this incident is. --Ozgod 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's entirely fair. Evouga 01:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When notability cannot be established, the appropriate action is deletion with leave for recreation when notability is assured. Erechtheus 02:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to which part of WP:Consensus?! Evouga 03:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The role of consensus is what is being played out with this AfD process. My comments in this debate are advocacy for the position that I think is most properly within the policies and guidelines of the project. There is no reason for even attempting to measure notability if failing to demonstrate it does not result in deletion. Erechtheus 03:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep the nominator has not made the case for deletion; it is certainly meets WP:N; it is way beyond the typical murder which receives little press other than locally. I am usually a big proponent of deleting wikipoliceblotter junk.  However, the amount of press coverage and media whoopla over this is reminiscent of Laci Peterson case.  I particularly do not agree with the recency of the events as a reason to delete doesn't "wiki" mean "quick" as in we quickly react to current events so that our encyclopedia is as up-to-date as possible - we even have a template and a section for current events on our main page!  As a tool against recency, WP may decide to have a waiting period for things to be written about - don't think it's ever been seriously discussed - but this is not the place or time to enforce such nonexistent guideline.  Carlossuarez46 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. No policies are being violated (excluding the "News reports" segment of WP:NOT that doesn't have any consensus). However, I think the issue of long-term importance (as opposed to short-term cable news/tabloid "importance") is a problem. --- RockMFR 22:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep We can make it accurate. The media coverage makes it notable. No need to add a second layer of bias here ("what Wikipedia editors think should have been covered"). --W.marsh 01:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Notability and specificially the "Notability is not temporary" section thereof. This article was created prior to notability being assured and is therefore not ripe for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Leaving the article and hoping for notability is speculative crystal ball gazing. If the coverage continues through the trial phase, the quality of the coverage increases, and something develops that leads to being able to say a single new thing about the topics of murder, domestic violence, missing white woman syndrome, or any other notable topic, we will have notability and a reason for there to be an article on this topic here. Erechtheus 02:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no hoping here; the event is *already* notable per the overwhelming amount of coverage from reliable secondary sources. Asserting that she will no longer be notable in the future (which is not clear to me; the next time a similar murder occurs the press might constantly bring up this case, just as with Laci recently) is, in my opinion, ball-gazing. Evouga 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel like this is Kelsey Smith revisited. Just because she was a missing white woman, doesn't make her any less notable.  Her case has dominated the news for the past week. Talmage 03:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Maybe I'm not reading the WP:N closely enough, but I just can't imagine a situation where this woman isn't notable. It seems as though some folks who oppose this article's existence may be a little too concerned about an editorial decision concerning Missing White Woman Syndrome. Using the argument that this article raises questions about whether it should be in WikiNews brings up other questions about whether some are motivated to strike this article from Wikipedia because they think it gives an unfair syndrome credence. That's wrong. This is clearly notable, for whatever reason the media has decided to blow up their coverage about it. It's not for Wikipedia editors to decide whether an article here lends credibility to a very poorly understood and little researched "syndrome."K-lit 07:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment For me at least, this isn't about the syndrome -- it's about how declaring this notable opens the door to make virtually every potential murder notable. As I wrote in the prior AfDs somewhere, I know most murders in my local area make the local paper at least 6 times by the time there is a finding of guilt and a sentence. Add in TV coverage, other newspapers who write about the events, and any online-only media that cover it, and you have just as much citation as you have for this article at present. When you consider it that way, I submit you have to come to the conclusion that not every murder is notable and that we have to wait to see how the case proceeds to figure out the notable ones from the non-notable ones. Erechtheus 20:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Exactly. Here's this week's crop of nationwide reported murders in the UK, from the BBC news website (dead young person category only):
 * 19 June - Murder of Sian Simpson, 18, stabbed in Croydon
 * 22 June - Murder of Carlos Eduardo Segove, 23, shot in Acton
 * 23 June - Murder of Mikey Brown, 23, stabbed in Kingston
 * 23 June - Murder of Annaka Keniesha Pinto, 17, shot in Tottenham
 * 23 June - Murder of Ben Hitchcock, 16, stabbed in Beckenham
 * 26 June - Murder of Martin Dinnegan, 14, stabbed in Islington
 * 27 June - Murder of unidentified 18-year-old, stabbed in Ilford
 * All headline news, headlines going on for several days, meta-level analysis &c &c - all of the things that are cited in support of the Jessie Davis article. They are not encyclopaic. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Comment - If your claim is that these cases are analygous / similar to the Jessie Davis case, how is it that neither I nor anyone else reading this page has ever even heard of these names? (JosephASpadaro 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure how you can make the claim for everyone else on the page. But guess what? I had not heard of Jessie Davis until I came across the wikipedia article. How - to turn your question back on you - can you claim notability for her / her murder if that is the case. You presumably do not live in the UK. I presumably do not live in the US. Meanwhile, thanks for making my case so eloquently. These ongoing front page murders are frequent, make for great filler in newspapers and TV, and are not encyclopedia material. (And, given that google is your friend, your comment is really really stupid, btw. I'm sorry to have to break it to you.) --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * I called people "stupid" when I was in the third grade. As such, your comment neither merits nor warrants a reply.  (JosephASpadaro 00:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
 * I called your comment stupid, not you. It is stupid because the premise of the keep argument is that nationwide saturation coverage of the Jessie Davis murder is evidence of notability; my assertion is that the above have received nationwide coverage (albeit in a different nation), and google and all sorts of other search engines can in an instant link you to the coverage. I even gave a ref to the BBC, for heavens sake. The best you could come up with is "how come I've never heard of them". To borrow your dismissive comment, I learned at about age three that sticking my fingers in my ears, closing my eyes and saying "nah nah nah I can't see you, you're not here" did not, in fact, mean that you were not here. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Listen, we can agree to disagree. That is the whole point of engaging in these Wikipedia debates and discussions in the first place.  I am ready, willing, and able to engage in meaningful and intelligent discussion and debate.  Calling people "stupid" (the logical extension of calling their comments "stupid") is hardly meaningful or intelligent.  So, if you want to engage in meaningful and intelligent discussion and debate, I am ready, willing, and able to do so.  If you want to engage in name-calling, a hallmark of what I called "third grade", I am not ready, willing, or able to do so.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 02:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Do you, now that you have had time to review the links, agree or disagree that these are headline murders in the UK, and cannot be dismissed by an "I've never heard of them" line of argument? --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * My position is that the Jessie Davis murder is notable (i.e., that it meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability). If you feel that the cases listed above are also notable, I certainly have no objection to you (or anyone else) writing an article about them.  Thanks.  (JosephASpadaro 19:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * keep This woman has met all the notability guidelines. And stop mentioning that she's white. The MWWS article is the most biased article in the site with no references at all.
 * Well, no references at all if you ignore the six inline citations, and nine external links that speak directly to the topic. Resolute 22:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * On top of that, this article is at least supposedly not about "this woman" but about the event of her disappearance and death. Erechtheus 23:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * comment I think we could manage 7 articles a week from the UKDGG 03:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this different from lacy peterson?68.187.117.71 05:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete IMHO the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping. A plethora of sources (news media in this particular case) is an indication of notability, not proof of it. That this has had long-standing news coverage simply means that it is newsworthy and puts it on a par with every other sensationalist murder that has ever happened. This is not encyclopedia material and is better suited to Wikinews. Wikipedia is not a news archive.  Zun aid  ©  ®  13:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep I agree that it is helpful to have all information on this case collected into a single, well-referenced article, rather than scattered across several, but I still think that it would be more appropriate to host information on this case on Wikinews. I just think that the standard of notability needs to be something more lasting than only widespread media coverage, because many topics which make the news at local, national, or international levels don't get articles. Looking at List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre, only two of the people killed have their own articles, both of whom have had books written about them. The Reena Virk and JonBenet Ramsay murders have each been the subject of a book and are still being discussed 10 years later. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I don't think that we can make any determinations about the notability of a case that's currently less than a month old. I think we should wait and see how this case develops, and, if after a couple of months, it does not/no longer meets the basic requirements of notability, we can renominate it for AfD. -Severa (!!!) 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Severa, please watch what you say. There are some people (on this very page) who think that JonBenet Ramsey was not murdered.  Or, let me rephrase that, that Wikipedia can NOT state that she was murdered.  Why?  Because an actual murderer was never convicted in that case.  I personally don't agree with that.  Just wanted to make you aware that, according to some people here, Wikipedia can NOT make the claim that the Ramsey case was indeed a murder case.  Preposterous, huh?  (JosephASpadaro 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Strong keep, Intense media/press coverage does equal notability. --musicpvm 23:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So the ultimate answer to what Wikipedia is about is may the best shill win? Erechtheus 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, welcome the coming hegemony of the The 3AM Girls. The lack of articles about celebrities getting pissed is clearly where we've been going wrong for so long. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * If their getting pissed is covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, then sure, I have no problem with an article being included in this encyclopedia. I see no need to inject yet more bias into Wikipedia by saying some "newsworthy" articles should be deleted while others who meed the same objective guidelines are showcased on the Wikipedia front page, even if I find the subject distasteful. Evouga 06:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep. This is one of those cases that will linger in the public consciousness for years, if only because of the TV shows it's gonna spawn, on A&E, Court TV, as well as the main networks as with MSNBC reports, etc; people will peek into WP after watching the show, and if there is no article, a few will likely recreate one. I wouldn't be suprised if a TV movie or two comes along. This is so notable, I'm pretty sure one or more books will get published. I suspect the article will be restructured into at least two articles, back to the original Jessie Davis straight bio, as well as a Bobby Cutts, Jr., now a redirect. As to the argument that murder victims are not notable ... ahem, reconsider your position: every murder is notable, but only a few are memorable, as is this one, and consequently, the perp is also notable. With so much reliable 2ndary information up at the moment, it behooves us to gather data into articles while the gathering is possible. The article is currently in development: let it develop naturally. Once a conviction is obtained, someone can go back, pare it down and put it into permanent form. --Ace Telephone 10:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Notability not established per WP:NOTE. WP is for a global audience. This page is full of comments making the assumption that American public = entire world. This might be newsworthy in NA, but elsewhere? Should we all start including local news in WP? EyeSereneTALK 10:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Under your theory, should Caroline Mary Luard be deleted? How about John Alan West? Or perhaps more on point, Kriss Donald? I've never heard of these murder victims and don't find the cases in any way memorable, though Brits may.--Ace Telephone 10:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In response:
 * John Alan West - case resulted in the last two executions in Britain.
 * Kriss Donald - case actually given less attention because he was white. [Kriss_Donald#Controversies_surrounding_the_case]
 * Caroline Mary Luard - Famous cold case (in the UK). (a comparative case here in the U.S. would be Tillie Smith which doesn't have an article yet, as far as I am aware of).
 * Notability being restricted to a country is not a valid argument for deletion. Evouga 17:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Several other murder victims who have articles were mentioned. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason for adding yet another TrueCrimeStory as an encyclopedia article. It is actually the murderers who are more likely to pass the test of time, such as Jack The Ripper and Dr. Harvey Hawley Crippen. I would expect some of those mentioned to get deleted if they came up in AFD. Something being the subject of nonstop blabbing by Nancy Grace is almost the definition of tabloid journalism and what is non-encyclopedic despite being tabloid news. Nancy Benoit may have been notable before being murdered. Edison 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Ace Telephone's post, I'd like to add: Don't forget Nancy Benoit...she was a murder victim, and just because her husband was a famous wrestler she gets her own page.  I disagree 100% with the original "strong delete" and I vote Strong keep as the murder is now a part of history and is information that someone might require one day...I'm sure someone will :-)
 * (additional...added since posting originally...I'm a brit and I haven't heard of any of them, Ace)

SmUX 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The Nancy Benoit article has existed since 2005. Her notability is tied to her wrestling career, not her husband's. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree that pro wrestlers are notable, but that's what is currently supported by the guideline. Erechtheus 21:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)`
 * In response to various above comments: the article uses 41 citations: 39 are for news organisations, one relates to a different case, and the last is to a TV programme that rehashes news coverage. How does this properly establish notability? Newsworthiness, absolutely, but according to WP:NOTE, notability is established by "reliable sources". This does not necessarily include news reporting. Newspapers (for example) are a reliable source if used for quoting things they have printed... but not for the subject itself because, almost by definition, they will editorialise and POV as they report. They are not subject to scholarly scrutiny in the way that a published journal or serious book would be, and because of the nature of the business, facts are often unchecked in the rush to jump on a media bandwagon and get reports out before competitors. If a serious book is published on this subject, then I'll happily change my vote, but until then this simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. As for some of the articles mentioned above, citing their existence is irrelevant. If they are sourced in muliple, independent, reliable publications, then great. If not, I'd vote to delete them as non-notable too. EyeSereneTALK 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep This has been noteworthy on another basis. It is one of the first cases mentioned in the media that one of the highest causes of death for pregnant women is Murder, particularly by a spouse or boyfriend. The relevancy to other cases should be noted is how the Equusearch also helpful in putting pressure on him to confess.Hourick 01:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, Hourick. This case has certainly brought to the forefront of our national consciousness that murder is the leading cause of death for pregnant women.  I suspect that said statistic was not widely known by the general population prior to discussion of this case. (JosephASpadaro 04:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC))


 * 1) Murder victims are always notable, but WPwise, the perp is the memorable one. Just consider Dr. Crippen--Ace Telephone 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, clearly notable. Everyking 07:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This event is notable per Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article cites much coverage of this nature in Disappearance_and_murder_of_Jessie_Davis. John254 20:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete -- This is not a news site, but rather an encyclopedia. There is nothing remotely newsworthy about this story outside of its local borders. Just another case of Missing/Murdered White Woman Syndrome that has infected the news media in the US. There are also missing and/or murdered women of all ethnicities, but they neither get the media coverage nor a Wikipedia article. It's a local news story made national purely made to provoke and, in a sick way, entertain. Nemalki 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Such speculation is personal bias and has nothing to do with the criteria for notability. Evouga 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Split This article should be deleted, but each of the people involved should have a seperate article/ 69.140.254.70 01:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I woulda said that a few days ago, but as I've added to the article, the whole gestalt has led me to the category I've put at the end of this article. Yes, Bobby Cutts, Jr. will have his own article (perps are always more interesting in these cases). I wrote the article Murdered pregnant women, and have started filling the category of the same name. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but it's popular, tolerating non-notable person articles such as Paris Hilton. Media-inspired, media circus-inspired articles are inherent to WP.¶ The article will indeed be split, but I want to keep it together for a while, just to maintain the tension between the good Christian unmarried girl who twice got herself pregnant by a philandering cop with three kids by two other women, only one of which he was ever married to. Calling Theodore Dreiser.--Ace Telephone 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC) I agree 69.140.254.70 13:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep At this midpoint of 2007, this is certainly the most sensational and widely covered criminal case of the past six months and, judging by the recent history of similar lurid tragedies will, with virtually no shadow of doubt, linger on the front pages, radio and television discussion shows, law school evidentiary forums and, of course, all over the internet. It definitely appears to be a killing and, most likely, murder. Also, given this case's pre-existing racial angle, waving the red flag of the insensitive-sounding expression "missing white women" serves only to inflame anger and recriminations. If the police officer had been white and the pregnant victim black, the coverage may well have been as intense, with additional references made to victimization of black women over the decades and centuries, as well as echoes of the Duke University case. The case's impact is both newsworthy and notable and, short of some world-shattering terrorist attack or other cataclysm, it appears headed for the position of one of the year's most extensively covered American stories. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2007 (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.