Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Myles Sharpe (Australian murderer)


 * 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 and rename to Sharpe family murders. This topic (broadly conceived) has received coverage that satisfies our general notability guidelines, and this coverage has persisted half a decade later. That said, the article as stands is a coatrack for the event of the murders, which are more notable than the individual, and so in line with WP:BLP1E the article is to renamed and refocused with the murders as its topic. Skomorokh 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

John Myles Sharpe (Australian murderer)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete Non-notable person known only for having murdered his wife and daughter. While horrendous, these kind of events are unfortunately not rare. The only sources are (as to be expected) a short`newspaper article that he got convicted, a notice that his house is on sale, and the curt proceedings (a primary source). There will almost certainly be some more newspaper articles about this crime, but clearly WP:BLP1E applies. I don't think that Wikipedia can or should have an article on every single murderer who ever walked this Earth. Crusio (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There are plenty of sources available for this article (including major features in major newspapers; the crime was reasonably notorious, at least in Melbourne) but I agree, BLP1E applies and unfortunately murders of this kind are not particularly rare. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Most murderers aren't notable and there is no claim that this one is. Joe Chill (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't live in Australia, but judging by the sources, this doesn't seem to be much different than the Susan Smith case that captivated the United States (i.e., person murders family in a bizarre manner, hides bodies, and then goes on national television in a fake emotional plea for their return). I'd add that the Google search by the nominator was looking for the exact phrase "John Myles Sharpe (Australian murderer)", so it's not surprising that those five consecutive words didn't turn up.   Searching for plain old "John Myles Sharpe"  turns up this, and it's a matter of opinion whether that's enough to be notable.  Seems to have been big news down under in '04 and '05, but on the other hand, Speargun Sharpe doesn't seem to have rated his own book in the True Crime section of the bookstore.  Mandsford (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The Google search mentioned above is automatically added, I didn't do that. I haven't looked into the Susan Smith article in detail, but to me it looks to be a WP:BLP1E case, too. Perhaps an encyclopedic article could be written about "people who murder their family/children and go on TV to ask for help in finding them" (but with a better tile :-), but individual articles about all these sad cases (which sadly will all be forgotten in another few years except by those who were directly touched) doesn't seem very reasonable. These articles will never become encyclopedic and cannot present more than: murder description, attempts to hide the crime, discovery and arrest, conviction. Adding the fact that their house is for sale/was sold really crowns it. Sorry, tis is newspaper article stuff, not encyclopedic content. --Crusio (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I thought you did the Google search. These only seem to have started recently, but now I know.  Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I note that the oft cited WP:BLP1E (sorry - couldnt easily check the link to "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" - it goes to a "WP" DAB) talks about "a low-profile individual". Then again, how many "low profile individuals" are given names such as "The Mornington Monster"? For many, the shocking nature of this crime means its not low profile. Again I iterate that i think all this attention stems from the poor presentation of this article (and the absence here of any comment or attempt [besides my own recent ones so far] of re-editing or salvaging it).Jabberjawjapan (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Where will it end? There are thousands (probably tens of thousands) of articles similar to the notoriety of this one (initial [inter]national shock at the gravity of the crime, then quick fading from the media, the a trial some months/years later, to be followed by lingering but "limited" web-based discussion and pages such as this...).  The point is, if this page is deleted, then ALL of the pages on wiki about individual murders or attempted murders that arent notorious or unique enough to become "significantly internationally famous" would therefore be eligible for deletion too. For me, the point is not deletion of a minor article [that's why wiki has a search function - to find the exact info you want from amongst all the other minor articles], but it's about how the article is presented (which seems to be the primary criteria for deletion here) Jabberjawjapan (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Jabberjawjapan's comment- while this guy is no more notable than the many other murderers listed on wikipedia, he is no less notable either. Precisely why this guy has been singled out for deletion I don't know. Unless there is: a) some reason that this particular case is less notable than all the others like it, or b) any plans to eliminate all the other articles as well, I see no reason that it should be deleted while others are left intact. There are plenty of individuals listed on wikipedia who are not "significantly internationally famous", but that doesn't immediately make them non-notable.122.106.156.3 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on Jabberjawjapan and preceding IP: I don't think that WP:Other stuff exists is a good or even valid keep argument. As for why this article: I stumbled upon a similar one during new article patrol and then went through the category "People convicted of murder by Victoria (Australia)". WP remains a work in progress, many thousands of articles still need to be added, many thousands of others may need to be deleted or merged, and countless thousands of stubs need to be expanded. In none of these cases can we just say, oh, there still thousands to go, lets not do this. I look forward to your arguments showing that this person is notable. --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems a straightforward case of WP:BLP1E to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Oops, sorry for the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS mistake, it's corrected. I don't think that "The Mornington Monster" indicates any special notability. Newspapers will often use such terms/headlines to generate sensation which increases sales. It doesn't take away that this person is known only for this one single event, which only generated some news coverage for a very limited period of time. And although I recognize that you are improving the article, it still is not very encyclopedic and as far as I can see never will be. --Crusio (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I note this website lists only 29 "Australians convicted of murder", with one of them being Sharpe... And yes, its a single murder event (one that was perpetrated twice), but made more heinous by his callous post-mortem behaviour Jabberjawjapan (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure it was heinous and callous, but as far as I know, that's not one of the criteria for notability. (BTW, even if this guy is a callous murderer, WP:BLP still applies, so I am not sure that the accusation of abusing his daughter is admissible under BLP - not saying it isn't, I just don't know). As for the website listing only 29 Australian convicted murderers, I am not sure what you mean with that. Do you mean to say that murder in Australia is rarer than we might think? Note that the source for this website is Wikipedia (see small print at bottom). --Crusio (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I guess the info is based on wiki, but who compiled that shortlist (out of all the cases of murder in australia)? anyway, so far this debate focus has been on sharpe and BLP notability - so why not simply rename/re-edit the article to something not using his name?...i never really liked the 'australian murderer' tag anyway Jabberjawjapan (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Keep per Jabberjawjapan's comment and pursuant to WP:BLP1E, where is the tip over point to attain notability? Consider the sentence, "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." The event/individual has been given coverage beyond newspaper reportage at the time. Jabberjawjapan has provided evidence for two TV shows (1st in 2004, 2nd in 2009) which describe the event/individual and two books (1st in 2005, 2nd in 2008). These constitute persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources: the tip over point has passed, hence the article should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Note: subsequent to half of the discussion here, over the last week or so, the article has been significantly modified particularly to include more details of the participants/events, as well as the ongoing effects/significance of the case in the media...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like it might lead to a solution. What I would think could be a good solution would be one article List of Australian murderers, along the lines of List of Portuguese supercentenarians, where each case has a few lines of bio. In the current case, that could include number and relationship with victims, and details such as the fact that he went on TV to call for a search. The current (and other similar) articles could then become a redirect to this list. --Crusio (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment And how exactly does this satisfy Notability (criminal acts)? --Crusio (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Consider Perpetrators subsection, third dot point with "Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" In said TV shows & books significant attention was drawn to Sharpe, to his use of the spear gun and to his duplicitious presentation as a concerned father/husband while knowing he was guilty. Once again persistent coverage has been shown in reliable secondary sources.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Featured on Crime Investigation Australia (TV series) and reported as "one of Australia's most ghastly crimes"/"one of the most violent crimes ever perpetrated in Australia". I tend to agree with Jabberjawjapan regarding the "The Mornington Monster" label. I'm not convinced that journalists invent sensationalist labels simply to make insignificant crimes significant. Location (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also note Sharpe is listed on the Crime in Australia, Timeline of major crimes in Australia, and List of convicted Australian criminals wikipages too...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to Sharpe family murders or something similar. The crime is notable, but the perpetrator is not. Moving would satisfy WP:BLP1E while retaining what is a valuable article. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2009 (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.