Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Drexler

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. By my count, keep outnumbers delete/twiki by one. Golbez 00:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Melissa Drexler
Very sad, but abandoned infants are just WAY too common to give the abandoner's extra publicity in an encyclopedia--leave that to Wikinews and local police blotters. Cases just in the past 12 months in North America alone include Griselle Suarez, Beatriz Cuaulte, Sarah A. Duenk, Stephanie Smith, Liem Swat Nio, Jennifer Donaldson, Erin Pendleton, Gloria Vasquez, Janet Sherman, Tri Minh Hoang, ...there's no doubt more, but it's too depressing to keep looking for them. Niteowlneils 01:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Noteworthy news item-- it's NPOV, and whether or not it's depressing is not the point.  Emiao 02:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm going side with Niteowlneils on this. Sadly, this is all too common to be notable.  Surely, we wouldn't include articles on every murderer or rapist, would we?  --Xcali 04:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I voted keep because I remember this girl, who was not just any old murderer-- she was called the "prom mom" and became a major human interest story. This article is a useful contribution to the historical record.  69.177.14.218 05:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I wasn't signed in. That was me, Emiao 05:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * A catchy name given by the press does not make a difference here. Just because something is all over television for 15 minutes does not make it notable forever.  For instance, remember last year when a woman and her friend were riding their mountain bikes in California and they were mauled - it was all over every news show for a week.  The man died, and the woman, Anne Hjelle, barely survived.  A random cougar attack, on the surface not notable?  Anne Hjelle gets twice as many google hits as Melissa Drexler (Anne Hjelle ~1100+ vs. Prom Mom ~571 or Melissa Drexler ~658).  The story here isn't this one murderer but the crime itself.  Like I said below, make an article about the crime, not the criminal.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 07:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, most criminals are not encyclopedic. --nixie 05:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Drexler is a prominent example of the class of baby murderers, and has had many mentions in the media. Also, although the events took place eight years ago, many people still remember this specific story.  By the way, I have carefully reviewed the criteria for deletion and What Wikipedia is not, and I'm afraid I cannot see that this article falls into any of the categories.  I can't connect the comment at the top of this VfD to any of them either.  Could we have a clarification, please?  Disclaimer: I have made significant contributions to this article. Bovlb 05:58, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * From What Wikipedia is not, I think "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base" #4 'Memorials' and #5 'News reports' apply. We have an article on arson (and carjacking, kidnapping, etc.), but don't generally have articles on each individual arsonists (or carjackers, kidnappers, etc.) because a single instance of such a common crime does not inherently have "historical significance". An article on infant abandonment (or maybe expand child abandonment to cover it) would be fine, maybe even link the names of those convicted of it to that article, but otherwise the individual criminal articles are much the same, except for the details: "__firstname__ __lastname__ was convicted of __exactcharge__ for leaving their infant in __exactlocation__, wrapped in __blanket/coat/nothing/whatever__. __criminal's name__ had been __at the gym/at the prom/doing laundry/at school/at work/whereever__ when the incident happened." The crime trend is probably encyclopedic--specific occurrences too commonplace to individually track. Niteowlneils 22:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From the same page, "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." #4 Memorials says that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." Although Drexler may not be highly famous, the individual case is widely known outside the circle of friends and relations.  #5 News Reports says "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories". Our account of Drexler's case is neither a first-hand account, nor breaking news.  Many of the comments on this VfD page seem to focus on Dexler's notability as the primary criterion for deletion, but other than the low bar offered under #4 Memorials, I'm afraid that I can't see any support for this being a deletion criterion per se under official policy. Bovlb 23:13, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
 * I've dug up some more Wikipedia guidelines on deletion. Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies says that we may include the biographies of "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events".  Importance says that we should not delete an article because its topic is "insufficiently important, famous or relevant" (providing it meets the other criteria, including WP:NOT, which I address above).  Finally, Votes for deletion/Precedents. Bovlb 04:59, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep agree with Bovlb. JamesBurns 06:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Drexler's case in particular appears to have been the subject of quite a bit of talk in the media; I found a reference to her in a George Will editorial, for example.  Postdlf 06:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A google search picks up 658 hits. While some may feel it might be notable enough (I do not), I feel it is unencyclopedic in this instance, so delete it.  That's not to say Bovlb does not make a good point: there seems to be no article in wikipedia on the phenomena of young parents abandoning and murdering their own children.  But rather than focusing on a few subjects of dubious noteriety, an article should be written that talks talks about and explores this phenomena (from a psychological and cultural stand point; why they do it; the effect on society; etc.) - I'm sure there are plenty of resources out there to competently draft an article.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 06:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this tragedy received considerable media attention it's notable. Also, I have never seen Postdlf vote keep on articles which should be deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to wikinews. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 09:08, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. I was pleased we had no Abigail Witchalls, a bit of a cause celebre here in the UK. This is typical Wikinews stuff. We may never hear about Melissa again, and hence no notability to speak of. JFW | T@lk  11:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This got a lot of press coverage at the time and has continued to to be mentioned when the similar acts hit the news. Not every criminal is a Lizzie Borden or Leopold and Loeb, and generally I would prefer to let criminal acts slip into obscurity, but I think this is one for Wikipedia. - DS1953 15:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm confused about the suggestions to move this to Wikinews. Is it really ok to send articles there that were in the news 8 years ago? If not then the suggestion to send an old news article there is a cop-out. If someone wanted to look up Melissa Drexler where do you suppose they would look? In Wikinews - doubtful. BTW my vote is to Keep. hydnjo talk 18:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but this is an important enough phenomenon that could justify a section in Infanticide, possibly including the names of some of the most well known cases. --Arcadian 18:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to some article on the subject as a whole. This does happen all the time, so one perpetrator is not neccisarily notable. --InShaneee 22:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikinews does not generally publish old news. Double Blue  (Talk) 02:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete are prisoners really notable? If a reference to this information is needed, then add it to Infanticide.  I suppose you cound make a case to include the first case of this type as being notable, but every one? Vegaswikian 05:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has been noted so, per definitionem, "notable". Grace Note 05:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not particularly notable.  Kaibabsquirrel 06:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it was a case notable enough to get an article. -- Mysidia 06:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting.  Grue   14:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely unnotable.  When wikipedia has thousands of articles like this one, it will be well on its way to being a laughingstock in any reputable circle that would use it as a resource.  Judging by the number of keep votes for this article and others like it, I am not so sure that wikipedia has not already reached that level. Indrian 03:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough, verifiable and interesting. This article has no significant effect on the qualify of any other articles, so Indiran's concerns are misplaced. Kappa 21:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I started the article for many of the keep reasons above. --PeterMarkSmith 06:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .