Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judy Moran


 * 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. In spite of all the attention raised by this AfD, the article still only says that she is related to notable gang members who were killed. Nothing added to the article has changed what the nominator said. Mention of her can be in other Moran articles. Bduke (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Judy Moran

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

This person is not notable for anything other than being related to three victims of the Melbourne gangland killings. -- Longhair\talk 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Longhair\talk 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - At first it looked like a clear deletion article but I can find many news stories. Lots about her book, and its subsequent withdrawal from sale, quite a bit about her signing with Harry M Miller as an agent. She appears to talk to the media frequently, be commented on frequently and is still generating press interest. She was scheduled for a TV appearance in Crime Mums but this was pulled by court order Herald Sun April 22, 2008. Looks to meet the WP:BIO requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 03:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I am very sorry for her loss, but the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Imagine if we allowed all relatives of murder victims to have their own articles based on the fact that they were interviewed by the media? There would be thousands and thousands of articles of this type. Cleo123 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peripitus. She's very notable in Australia in her own right. X Marx The Spot (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peripitus & X Marx the Spot. As others have said, she is a notable person in Australia in her own right, she has written a book and appears regularly in the media. The article provides information about the relationships with her first husband, also involved in crime and father off her eldest son and second husband, father of her second son. This information does not apppear anywhere else. J Bar (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the article contains information that "does not appear anywhere else," then that is justification for deletion, not inclusion.  From what I can tell, this woman was married to a man who was killed, and then later--in an unrelated incident--her son was killed.  That's not notability.  That's nothing more than a terrible coincidence. Qworty (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Correction to Qworty's understanding of her circumstances... Moran's first husband was murdered during the 1980's. Her estranged husband, and her two sons also became murder victims during the recent Melbourne gangland killings. -- Longhair\talk 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How's that anything more than a coincidence? She didn't hire anybody to kill them, right?  They weren't killed because of her, right?  It looks to me as if she had nothing at all to do with any of these killings.  Just how is she notable?  Also, what is the name of her book and who published it?  I'm looking all over the net for it and can't find it.  I need to be able to assess its notability to see if she qualifies under WP:BK.  But I would say off-hand that she probably isn't notable as a writer if her book is this hard to find.  I understand that her first book was withdrawn--if this is all there is to it, then she can't be notable for writing a non-book and not participating in killings. Qworty (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite clearly their deaths were not a coincidence as all the killings were related. They were all killed as part of a gangland war relating to criminal activity that Judy Moran's family was involved in. As for notability, she is more than a grieving wife and mother, she is a member of a Melbourne crime family involved in activities that have been covered to the point of over-exposure in the Melbourne press including the Herald-Sun (circulation 551,100) and The Age(circulation 196,250) and in national television programs.  They have been the subject of books such as the Underbelly series written by John Silvester, later made into a high-rating drama series - Underbelly (TV series).  She has been the direct subject of multiple news items and clearly meets the primary notability criteria under WP:N. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. Interviewed on Channel Seven the other night Today Tonight to defy judge's orders. A "gangland mother" with more notoriety than notability (but notable due to the notoriety). Heaps of hits i.e. The Age, Brisbane Times a You Tube video etc. Definitely requires an article.--Sting au  Buzz Me...   05:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable as a 'gangland mother' and the subject of many media stories over the years. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N - the subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While she is notable mainly for the actions of others, that does not mean she is not notable.  The amount of coverage given in the Australian media indicates that clearly.  The only concern I have is WP:BLP. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So, if I'm related somehow to a notable person, who is murdered - and in the ensuing publicity that surrounds that case, I am interviewed many times by largely tabloid media outlets - does that make ME - notable??? Sorry, kids, but that's all I see here. Cleo123 (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, it isn't one person murdered but three, all in separate but related incidents. Secondly she isn't "related somehow" like a second cousin or a niece but is the wife and mother of the murdered criminals.  Thirdly, she is not a passive victim interviewed about her grief but an active player in the propaganda side of the "war". Did you bother reading the articles brought up by the news search?  Lastly, patronising remarks such as "Sorry, kids" do you and your argument little credit. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I did read the pathetic smattering of articles presented. What I saw was a bunch of tabloid garbage. This person is NOT notable on an international level in my opinion, and should not be included on Wikipedia. What has this person "accomplished"? Nothing, as far as I can see. She's just related to people who were murdered and she got herself some publicity out of that. Wikipedia should not be misused to promote wanna-be celebrities of any sort. And I was not attempting to be "patronizing" to anyone by using the phrase "sorry, kids". I work in the entertainment industry, where this is a very commonly used term of endearment. I wasn't attempting to make anyone feel insecure about their youth. And attempting to pick a personal argument with editors who don't share your POV, does little to help your own argument. Cleo123 (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you create a strawman to knock down, expect to be called on it. If that is "picking a personal argument", so be it. Notability does not need to be established on an "international level", try reading WikiProject Countering systemic bias for reasons why. The fact that you have not heard of her in New York does not somehow make her unsuitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Further, what the subject has "accomplished" is irrelevant when assessing notability. You do not have be "accomplished" to be notable, see Martin Bryant for an example of a man without any "accomplishments", nevertheless suitable for inclusion. As for "tabloid", how does that have any bearing?  Tabloid or not, notability is notability; Paris Hilton has made a career of tabloid notoriety. Sounds like snobbery to me to suggest otherwise.  Your explanation (apology?) for the "Sorry, kids" term would carry more weight if the earlier comment wasn't loaded with capital letters and multiple question marks, as if to say that anyone serious couldn't possibly support the argument.  To follow that with "Sorry, kids" seems like an attempt to demean other editors.  Your explanation (apology?) for your use of the term would carry more weight if it wasn't followed by insinuations of insecurity. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing notoriety with notability. There's quite a difference when one considers what is encyclopedic and what is WP:NOT. Cleo123 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very notable as a 'gangland mother' and the subject of many media stories over the years, as noted above. 72.241.99.251 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of secondary sourcing, was portrayed in a major Australian TV series... so definitely notable. WP:BLP should be a concern for this article, but that is no reason for deletion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC).
 * keep per User:Peripitus et al. Horsesforcorses (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * delete Per Cleo. Five Years 11:51, 4 May 2008 (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.