Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder by Family


 * 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   no consensus. Kept by default.  Sandstein  08:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Murder by Family

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It's a bit of a question, the page needs to be deleted or rewritten, and I'm inclined to say deleted. Right now it's framed as a book about a WP:BLP1E incident (a guy killed his family). Bart Whitaker killed his family in 2003 and was executed for it. Two books were written about it, one by the father (who survived) and another by someone independent. There's some news results and Youtube videos of his testimony. Anyway, I'm not sure about it, so I'm basically using this for broader input. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bit of a follow-up for clarification - if people think the book should be deleted but the person or murder is notable, could they suggest a redirect and rewrite? My apologies, it does muddy the waters somewhat.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whether or not the murders are notable or that they've had two books written about it doesn't really matter. Even if they were notable, this book wouldn't inherit that notability. All it would mean is that a highly visible and notable crime would make it far easier to find sources and reviews for the book. What matters here is that there's enough independent and reliable sources to show this book is notable, which are almost always articles and reviews about the book. They're just not out there and believe me, I searched. There's a lot of interviews where the book is briefly mentioned, but nothing that would be considered continuous coverage of the book and most importantly, there's nothing out there review-wise for this book. Everything that I find is unusable as a RS. I just can't find anything to show that this book has notability independent of the murders and all of the articles I've found talk more about the father and the murders. This doesn't pass WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand article to include reception and critcal response. Per WP:NBOOK, only one of that guideline's listed criteria need apply, and while the articles about the book naturally speak contextually about the book's topic, the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.. and THAT'S the criteria it meets. And that some of these are published by the independent news agencies that may have reported on the same event as does the book, still makes them independent of the event and the book... as news agencies are expected to report on news events. Found in a quick search were CBS News 1 ABC 20/20 Daily Sentinel  International Business Times  Houston Chronicle 1  Houston Chronlicle 2  Houston Chronicle 3  Frederick News Post  CBS News 2 and  Register Guard among others. So we have the book meeting WP:GNG. Also nice for consideration toward notability is that the book was on New York Time's best seller list.  So in determining the book under the applicable criteria, we do not judge the events surrounding the book's tragic topic, but instead consider that the book as having been the recipient of commentary, review, and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources, and understand that it would be expected that sources contextually speak toward the event (the book's topic) in their commentary, review, and analysis.  And, per WP:EVENT, such continued coverage might also qualify the event itself as notable... whch might then justify a new article on the event to which this might later be merged. But this discussion here is about the one book brought to AFD... not the event... and not other books on the same topic by other folks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep a book on the nyt bestseller list is undoubted notability by our standards. Now, this title appeared only as no.29 & on only  one list, that For Oct 26, 2008, and, though we have never actually decided the issue, only the top 10 are usually considered true NYT best sellers.. But independently ofthat are the mnay reviews in national publications, some of which included long excerpts from the book. This meets NBook. It also meets GNG, for these quite substantial reviews are WP:RSs for notability. (worldcat shows the book in 633 libraries, about right for a book of this notability that is no longer current) .  How anyone who searched Google can consider there was nothing out there review-wise escapes me entirely--even a plain G search without the quotes gives the ABC review as the 3rd entry. . (I suppose looking at Google Scholar by mistake might do it, but I can't think of any other likely error :) The article can appropriately mention the other book, and news stories on the event. As far as I can tell the event is notable, more so than the book, because there are 2 books, and also the actual news accounts, and the article could be moved there, as Murder of Whitaker family. I don't see the need for two articles.   DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 5 April 2012 (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.