Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Ristevski


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Karen Ristevski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person was not notable in her own right and her murder does not appear to be either. Grahame (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete no sign of notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:VICTIM. and this trumps significant coverage in the case of murders. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as having no notability in her own right. There was certainly a level of coverage around her disappearance/murder which may qualify as notability, but that's an argument for another day and another hypothetical article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete She's not notable, per WP:BLP1E etc. The alternative would be to move and repurpose as an article on the murder, but Wikipedia doesn't and shouldn't have an article on every murder. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT suggest only keeping where an event has lasting significance or a wider effect, and this would be shown by things like international coverage or lasting historical coverage beyond the immediate event. While tragic, as every death is, there's no indication that it meets these requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The death received coverage as far as the UK and the ongoing investigation shows the likelihood of murder or foul play. Considering the family owned several failing businesses, plus the money from Ristevski's inheritance of a will that was split between her and her husband (who is the prime suspect), it seems as though it could become quite a high profile case. I think as it develops, it should stay. It has received enough attention in Australia and is reminiscent of the 2012 murder of Allison Baden-Clay in Queensland. The issue is, because this case probably will progress (if the Australian judicial system knows what it's doing) then I have no doubt if it is deleted now someone will start it again once a court case is opened. Ashton 29 (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And besides which, if the court case becomes reason for notability (NB: the Baden-Clay case appears to have established some level of precedent regarding how criminal cases should be prosecuted and defended in this country, so this one's got a bit of a way to go before that), there's never an obstacle to recreating the article then. The fact that the husband is the prime suspect and has been a beneficiary of a family legacy is - sadly - not an overly distinctive thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: per WP:VICTIM. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2017 (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.