Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Piirainen


 * 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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Holly Piirainen
We can't possibly put an article about every crime. Google shows 233 results. ^demon 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, per my own nom. -^demon 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * merge to Molly Bish --Melaen 16:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because she has a Finnish surname. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * People with Finnish ancestry are somehow remarkable now? I think not, and I happen to be one. It's grim, but I don't think Wikipedia has room for every murder victim. --Agamemnon2 07:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. May be important case. -- JJay 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP. It's a COLD, unsolved case. Chandra Levy stays on WP, and her case is also cold. Lets leave Holly on here, shall we? Or we can Merge her to Molly Bish. I vote for both. --Shultz 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable well-known murder.  Grue   18:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - why exactly can't there be an article for every crime? Is there a limit on the number of articles in Wikipedia?  I also definitely would not agree with merging the article with that on Molly Bish - they are two separate cases with only the most tenuous link between them, almost just one of those flukes of history.  And even the issue of whether or not they are 'cold' cases, while supportive of retention, is really irrelevant - a crime is a crime, and ANY murder has significance for many, many people - not only those involved, but whole communities.  Wikipedia is an first an encyclopedia, not an aid to crime-solving, though it may be useful in that end.  I vote for keeping both articles as they are.  -- Ishel99 23:31, 17 December 2005 (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.