Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Christina Edkins


 * 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Christina Edkins

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS. A single murder victim isn't notable, despite how tragic it may be. Classic case of WP:ONEEVENT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, speedy if possible, per nominator's arguments.  PK T (alk)  19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed, this is tragic but not notable. Is an article about a crime like this eligible for speedy deletion? If so, I'd support a speedy. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Lugnuts writes that "A single murder victim isn't notable, despite how tragic it may be". So according to that reasoning, we shall have to delete, for example, the article Murder of Stephen Lawrence as well then, yes?--Sandy P212 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also, speedy deletion? According to Wikipedia's policies on speedy deletion, if a page is an "article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" then it can be deleted speedily. This has been covered extensively in national media starting from today, which is strong evidence that there is some level on which this article can be seen as "important or significant".--Sandy P212 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope: concrete evidence of actual impact on something beyond itself. A murder which books or films get written about would qualify for an article; a murder which raises legal issues, such that the victim has whole new laws named after her to try to resolve them, would qualify for an article; a murder which is still being written about by other people 15 or 20 years later, because for better or for worse it initiated a major cultural shift that people are still trying to get a handle on, would qualify for an article. But if all you can write is "a murder happened, end of article, stub notice", then that does not qualify. Not all murder victims automatically qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being murder victims; just like any other class of article topic, there are notable ones and non-notable ones, and each case has to be judged on its own merits. This is not automatically comparable to Lawrence just because you flipped the racial dimension inside out; Lawrence had actual documentable social and legal impacts that this one has not yet had. It's the presence or absence of ongoing social and legal and cultural impacts that determine whether or not a murder gets to have an article on here, not the simple fact of the murder having happened. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; it's a sad story but there is nothing to indicate that this is an unusual case. ObtuseAngle (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTNEWS for the event, WP:BLP1E for the subject. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete tragic, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It's too early to say if this event has any lasting impact beyond this news cycle. Funny  Pika! 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete As stated several times already, tragic situations are not necessarily noteworthy enough to be considered encyclopedic. In fact, unless the person murdered was already famous prior to their death, very few murders could possibly be considered encyclopedic. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record: while it is possible for a murder to be sufficiently notable as to warrant a Wikipedia article, that is not automatically extended to every murder that happens to take place. The difference is in whether lasting and sustained significance can be demonstrated; the textbook example of this is Matthew Shepard, whose enduring impact can be plainly demonstrated by the fact that 15 years after his death he's still an internationally famous household name, who still continues to be the subject of one of the single largest volumes of literature and art and legal efforts and other cultural and social impacts in the entire history of media coverage of murder. If all you can properly source is the very basic details of the fact that a murder happened, with no documentable impact on anything bigger than itself, then that's not a murder that Wikipedia should be covering. As tragic as it may be, there are hundreds or thousands of murders in the world every single day, but we do not keep articles on every last news event on earth just on the off chance that it might eventually develop more enduring historic significance — we wait until that enduring historic significance has already been demonstrated before we deem it to be an appropriate article topic. Delete unless and until much stronger sourcing than is present here, demonstrating a much more significant and lasting social or cultural impact than this version implies, can be added. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither the event nor the victim has enduring notability. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Tragic - but nonetheless currently non-encyclopedic - murder. Non-notable individuals; WP:NOTNEWS; no indication that there will be "enduring notability of persons and events." Keri (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for now -- We need to see how the case develops. The latest news that I heard was that the perpetrator had bene found and sectioned.  I suspect that is not the end of the matter.  People find random homicides of this kind alarming, so that they get a lot of coverage.  I suspect that there will be a trial, which will result in a detention "at Her Majesty's pleasure".  This is liable to generate a debate over what should be done with dangerous psychopaths (and such like).  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * None of the things you mention are valid reasons to 'keep.' To reiterate Bearcat above: "[W]e do not keep articles on every last news event on earth just on the off chance that it might eventually develop more enduring historic significance — we wait until that enduring historic significance has already been demonstrated before we deem it to be an appropriate article topic." Keri (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. I can't speak for everyone who is calling for deletion, but I wouldn't object to this article being recreated someday if -- and only if -- the case proves to have lasting significance above that of a typical murder. However, allowing this article to remain in the interim sets a precedent that every murder ought to have its own Wikipedia entry because it might prove to be a significant case someday. Hundreds of people are murdered in the UK every year; thousands are murdered in the United States. Every one of these murders is tragic. Very few of them are encyclopedic. The bar for "encyclopedic" is quite high. ObtuseAngle (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - WP:NOTNEWS for the event; WP:BLP1E for the subject. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2013 (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.