Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karmein Chan 2


 * 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 Gnangarra 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Karmein Chan


A murder victim, who is not well known, nor did her death lead to anything of import (laws, books etc.); her murder is already covered in the article on the murderer. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be considered with Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle talk 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: as per my comments at the AfD for Ebony Simpson, this case dates from 1991 and 1991 cases are less likely to attract google hits than more recent cases - this was a very major news story for a long period of time - significantly more notable in my view based on coverage particularly by the tabloid press and women's magazines than say the Brian Burke scandal which somebody thinks worthy of an article. WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other.  I am disappointed that deletion debates focus on what people think might be notable rather than actual independent objective criteria.  The Karmein Chan case was the subject of many many newspaper and magazine stories.  I have difficulty with comments from people who were too young and/or not in Australia who would be unable to judge the amount of coverage this topic received.If they can't judge on that basis then they need to use the objective criterion provided by WP:Bio is that she meets the notability threshold.  Notwithstanding these comments, I accept that as at the Ebony Simpson AfD, this article might be better merged with that of the murderer and discuss the murder and aftermath.--Golden Wattle  talk 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares about google hits; there is nothing verified in this article which is an issue given that it talks about her living parents. --Peta 00:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - she was all over the news in Australia. She's an inherently notable person, though probably not for anything that she did. - Richard Cavell 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a horrific case that dominated Australian news for a good few years so surely that's reason enough to keep it. Also, if fictional television characters deserve to have their own pages then surely a murdered child involved in a major and still unsolved case should have their own page. And she is 'well known' to Australians. There are many celebrities who aren't well known in other countries not of their nationality yet they still have pages so the same applied for Karmein Chan. - Cosmic_quest 23:01, 12 March 2007


 * Keep - Important event of history in Melbourne. If you want delete something truly banal, try Clea Rose. Prester John 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Only notable for her connection to her murderer, and he is covered adequately.DavidYork71 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No he isn't. His identity is not known. It's only postulated that one guy committed all those child rapes. - Richard Cavell 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- very well known murder victim. The face of Chan was plastered all over billboards in Melbourne during the early 1990's and many would remember the incident. Meet's WP:BIO. -- Longhair\talk 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Bduke 22:23, 15 March 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.