Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Esther Brown


 * 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.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Esther Brown

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 *  Strong keep Before commenting I read what meets the criteria for routine events. This is absolutely not routine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage CT55555 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see we're essentially having the same conversation on two delete pages, but they may not be closed by the same admin, so I'll say it here too: I'm open to being persuaded, but I'm inviting you rather than to link to policies, be really specific about which part of them you say applies here. I've read the NOTNEWS and I've read the GNG and I've read ROUTINE and this event is not routine, and it's not original reporting and it's not a news report and it is generally notable, so if you wish to persuade me to change my mine (and I'm open to being persuaded) then please really spell it out clearer please. CT55555 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Star Garnet (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect your good faith AfD here, I'd like to hear other opinions before opining further myself. I remain "keep" having downgraded from "strong keep" and will be open to being persuaded, hoping that others join in. For now, I'm watching and listening. CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting aside whether or not the 'significant coverage' that the event received qualifies as SIGCOV (the sources are reliable but not secondary), I would suggest you look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Particularly this paragraph: "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Star Garnet (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A murder with rape of an old person in their own home by a sex offender they did not know is not "a routine murder". It is atypical and is the sort of crime that results in political campaigns being started or commissions of inquiry to pin the blame on somebody. Allow this article time to evolve for a few years. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The 81 women killed in 28 weeks (Guardian) is the only WP:SECONDARY source I have found, and it only mentions Esther Brown, in a list. Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: For more consensus on NOT NEWS/Notability and depth of sourcing. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, because it has significant coverage and is completely not routine. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant coverage, good sourcing. Per WP:GNG at this point. BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - after WP:OR/WP:SYNTH was removed, there is no indication of enduring notability. This subject also does not appear to objectively meet the GNG, e.g. fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works and the brief burst of coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep/Comment I already opined above, so don't double count this, but I also waivered, so restating for clarity. Also noting that specific feedback was sought on [WP:NOTNEWS] here goes. I see that NOTNEWS gives four things to avoid. 1 - Original reporting. This is not original reporting, everything is cited. 2 It warns against creating articles for routine news of "announcements, sports or celebrities", my anlysis is that trivial content should be avoided. I don't think this article makes that mistake. 3 NOTNEWS tells us to make it about an event, not a person, as this article does. 4 NOTNEWS tells us to avoid celebrity gossip or diary type stuff. This article is not that. To me, this article clearly does not make any of the mistakes that NOTNEWS warns to avoid. And it meets the GNG. I'd also say that this event was covered in The National, the BBC, Sky News and the Glasgow Times. The quality of the Glasgow Times I am uncertain of, but the others are credible news sources with their own employed journalists and editors, the suggestion that some newspapers in some places just copy each other's content is not credible, in this context, to me. This article meets the GNG and none of the comments above, which I've considered carefully, convince me otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOTNEWS also states, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and per WP:N, Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics, which per the GNG, should include WP:SECONDARY sources to provide the most objective evidence of notability, which would distinguish this article from a brief burst of news articles about a tragic event. Per WP:SBST, Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage, and this is why this 12-sentence article does not appear to meet the GNG. Similarly, the WP:EVENT guideline states in the nutshell section, An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time, and this criteria also does not appear to be supported by the available sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I already commented earlier, so really tried to avoid repeating my points and focus on the specific point that the admin? wanted input ons, but now you have brought other points up, so I'll comment on them: On notability, every source cited is secondary, they are journalists commenting on events that they were not involved. On WP:SBST, this is not "routine" nor a "press release" and while one source was tabloid, neither the National nor BBC are tabloid. There is one aspect of WP:SBST that I'll acknowledge doesn't support my argument to keep, and that is the need for there to be analysis, the sources do all tend to say what happened without analysis, so I'll concede that point. But I don't think the length of the article is a point to argue on, there's plenty that can be added to it and AfD is not the correct process if we think the article is too short, the correct response to that is to work on the article (I did add a bit to it some days ago, I might do more later). The question of if reporting on the event will continue with time - it's a bit early to tell, we can speculate, it could be argued either way. As someone said above, the brutal rape and murder of an older person by a stranger is an exceptionally uncommon event and it's reasonable to assume that public commentary will be sustainable, but we could speculate either way, Wikipedia does have articles about recent events, so that is no reason to delete. So in summary, I see the things you are pointing to, I accept some validity to the lack of analysis and I acknowledge the unknown about the sustainability of interest. And I remain in my opinion to keep. (I got an edit conflict, as I posted this, so replying to the first version)  CT55555 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Where this clearly runs afoul of NOTNEWS is part 2. This is simply a series of news reports strung together. This isn't the fault of the article; there's nothing but news reports to draw from. There are no SIGCOV-passing sources. 95%+ of media coverage (reports, interviews, human interest stories, breaking news, editorials, investigative reports, etc.) is not SIGCOV-passing coverage, and does not contribute meaningfully to GNG-worthiness. In this case, it's straight reporting of facts, with negligible analysis. The set of events isn't generic, but murder and/or rape of older people is hardly groundbreaking, and it isn't noted as being so. There's nothing to suggest that this event will have a meaningful impact on larger events, which is the essense of notability as it relates to societal topics. Star Garnet (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect the point you are making, even if I don't share your conclusion. I won't add more, as it would be repetitive. I'm confident the closing admin will give both our different conclusions fair consideration, along with hopefully more perspectives. All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes this is absolutely not routine and surely should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this incident escapes the confines of WP:NOTNEWS due to the unique circumstances of the attack, which was perpetrated by a repeat offender who had been released from prison. Besides for the ongoing coverage leading up to and including the perp's conviction in court, the case has a WP:LASTING effect due to politicians weighing in on it, such as "The Scottish Conservatives are now calling for greater transparency around parole decisions." StonyBrook (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - coverage is good, event is significant. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:35, 16 February 2022 (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.