Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jana Shearer (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  14:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the keep comments are exactly pertinent to the issue of hand: should this article be included? The arguments to delete are much stronger than the ones to keep. DHMO's link interested me, and I looked at the three articles, but I don't think they are very pertinent articles with a lot of information and centred on the murder itself, so DHMO's comment isn't that strong.

Murder of Jana Shearer
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm re-nominating this page because the last AfD for it was a no consensus/check back in a month. It's been more than a month since and no edits to the article have been made. I'm a bit impartial to it, I'm only nominating it due to the outcome of the last AfD. Undeath (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E/WP:ONEEVENT (the two are confusing me these days) and/or WP:NOTNEWS. There is no evidence of notability beside her murder. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 03:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, the first two don't really apply, since this is not a biography, but an article about the event itself. (This isn't meant as a keep argument; I just want to make sure you know what guidelines you're invoking.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, like I said, they confuse me. Basically, my deletion argument is that she isn't notable apart from the murder. I don't think the case of the murder is any more notable than another murder in terms of not being news. It would be different in my mind if she were known for something and happened to be murdered. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep since the article is about the murder, that she might not be notable except for the murder does not seem a logical reason for deletion DGG (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument isn't (or at least shouldn't be) that she is not notable outside the murder. The basic argument is that the murder itself is not notable. -- RoninBK T C 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This murder has received far more media coverage than the average murder, and has captivated the attention of the American midwest. Even now, there is more being written, said, and discussed on this particular murder than the subject of most articles on Wikipedia. I see no reason why it should be deleted, only that it should be kept. EgraS (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Lots of grandiose claims from EgraS, all totally unsubstantiated. WWGB (talk)


 * Keep The nominator offers no rationale for deletion. 121.217.107.8 (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Previous AfD decision was to revisit in one month. Nominator is merely complying with this decision. If anything, the nomination rationale is the same for the previous AfD-- RoninBK T C 08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment EgraS is being investigated as a potential sock puppet. That makes that IP look strange too. Undeath (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ABF. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're also suspected of being a conspiracy nut. Just because I am investigated for being a sockpuppet doesnt mean a thing. I can find ten random usernames and also post a sockputtetry notice on your talk page, and then mention that every time you post anything. EgraS (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither one of you are the subject of this debate, this article is. Let's try to keep it that way, and be WP:CIVIL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninbk (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC) ...oops... -- RoninBK T C 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Aside from ghoulish fascination with cannibalism, where's the notability? WWGB (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There has been no news about this since it broke on January 7th. I said in the first AFD that if, in a month or so, there was nothing new, to delete it. It's been two, there is nothing new. Cougar Draven (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per DGG. Still has sources. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable crime; only here because of the recentist bias inherent in our process here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:02, 14 March 2008 (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.