Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Angelika Kluk


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Angelika Kluk

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:CRIME. people get murdered by blunt objects all the time. a spike in coverage during the trial but no long standing historical notability about the crime or trial. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. Yes people gets murdered by blunt objects all the time but not all get the coverage (as you yourself stated spiked at the hight of the events) for both the murder nad subsequent trial as this one. Has also been kept per a previous AfD not included here with a link for some reason.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * what aspects of WP:CRIME is met? Where there is evidence of persistent coverage years after the trial? Please show actual links. LibStar (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally there are press reference to the case - or at least the scene of the crime - in the past week: Daily Record. Also of relevance is this section 24 in this Press Association submission on libel laws. AllyD (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep; highly notable crime covered in multiple sources. --John (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Previous AfD resulting in "keep" was while the article was under the name of the victim. AllyD (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —AllyD (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment There was a suggestion to Merge this article into that on the perpetrator: see Talk:Peter_Tobin; that remains outstanding, however the template had been removed from the current article in question. AllyD (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, lets keep the article and discuss it when kept. I think however that the person in the article is notable on its own.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Scottish media was absolutely jam packed with this case for weeks on end. It was the No.1 headline story in countless tv news bulletins, radio news bulletins and newspaper editions, and the subject of heavy commentary. I find it very hard to see how on earth it could fail our notability criteria. Mais oui! (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's difficult to measure notability against WP:EVENT from the references provided in the article, but I'm prepared to go with the assurances from established Wikipedians that it was a prominent story and a frequent news headline. Assuming this is the case, there's little point in disputing the notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2011 (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.