Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kovan Double Murders


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Kovan Double Murders

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Protracted case and trial, but simply another double murder. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

KEEP. How is it a "another double murder" to you? That one was not a normal double murder as what you put it; it was a double murder where we see a police officer involved in it, and it is not a normal one in Singapore where a policeman kill a person and sentenced to death. That one really garnered nationwide attention and is a notable one in Singapore (in which many had paid particular attention to the trial and aftermath), notable enough like the Toa Payoh Ritual Murders to be published on wikipedia. NelsonLee20042020
 * Keep. Clearly notable case, heavily covered and well-sourced. I can see no reason for deletion whatsoever. If this is deleted then WP:NOTNEWS could be seen to cover any murder case in the world. Let's delete 'em all! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - not only covered heavily by various reliable sources but also over a prolonged period of time. I'm not sure how NOTNEWS applies Spiderone  14:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment All the cited sources covering this seem to span a very short duration: 21 July to 23 July of this year, which would put this squarely in the domain of news. In order for this article to survive (the author(s) clearly have put in a lot of work) consider adding sources that demonstrate sustained coverage over a prolonged period of time.— Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 14:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon closer inspection, it appears that the sources do cover a much wider range of dates than that. The creator hasn't inputted the dates on their references correctly. They seem to have dated the references by 'access date' rather than the date in which the article was written. 2013 ref 2015 ref 2017 ref I would argue even a 4 year span of that level of reporting is notable. Spiderone  16:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Enough coverage for it to be included. Inexpiable (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Note: Notability is not temporal. The article is heavily referenced with sufficient reliable and independent secondary sources to deem that the article easily passes WP:GNG. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I amended the links and included the dates of publication of the news articles covering the case. like what i said in my previous comment, i say we should keep it. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:SIGCOV. Seems like it has ongoing coverage through this month, more than the average murder. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2020 (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.