Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier


 * 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   speedily deleted as copyvio of  (. Neıl  龱  08:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Murder of Joseph Didier

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Sad, but the vast majority of single murders are not notable, and this one has nothing which sets it apart from the others. Moreover, the article is identical to Joseph Didier, which is also up for AfD here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Now move for speedy deletion because of copyvio. User:AniMate discovered this page] where much of the copy for the WP article was ripped off from. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This murder had a strong effect on the community (thus making it notable) as the reliable sourced provided by the article attest. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 07:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This search shows what seems to be national news coverage for this event. Kevin (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Add quotes to that search and it suddenly looks a lot less notable, not to mention looking suspiciously like NN per WP:NOTNEWS. Debate   木  08:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It still shows coverage in Denver and Chicago, which seems a bit national (to an Aussie) to me. Kevin (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there were two people murdered in the '70s named Joseph Didier. One was a teen murdered by a man named Robert Lower, but the Denver references are about a 26 year old man murdered in Denver by a man named Marvin Gray. Ani  Mate  18:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to self - read sources more carefully. It didn't occur to me that 2 murder victims with the same name in the same time period would exist. Kevin (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete per CSD G4. Seriously, this article is already under consideration for AFD. This is simply a recreated article a couple of days too early... How many times does the same, identical content need to be discussed at AFD? Debate   木  07:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not quite the same - the unfortunate victim is not notable, however the murder is notable. Hence the creation of this article. Kevin (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Per One Event stuff keep the article on the murder if the event is notable and delete the other one if the subject is only notable because of the one event. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but merge. There's no need to have two articles on this. My preference would be to make Joseph Didier the main article as someone looking for information on this 3-decade-old event will type in the guy's name, not "Murder of ..." 23skidoo (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Redirect-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless more references are added. At the moment all the references appear to be to the local newspaper, Rockford Register Star. Some evidence of wider coverage and wider notability needs to be demostrated to pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming that coverage in the Rockford Register Star doesn't suffice for notability purposes, see the link above that shows that the incident received coverage in Denver and Chicago as well.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * DeleteI prefer "Murder of X" articles to articles purporting to be a biography of an otherwise non-notable murder victim. The murder did no apparently result in any new "Megan's Law" or "Amber Alert" and the article should be deleted for reasons better stated at the essay WP:NOTNEWS and the policy WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The event took place 30+ years ago, applying WP:NOT seems oxymoronic.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The victim was not notable and the event was not notable. The 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, or the 1932 kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh Baby have had continued coverage and discussion over many decades, have been the subject of books, and have influenced society. This crime has had plenty of time to demonstrate its historical impact, and none is evident. Not all newsworthy things are encyclopedic. Old newspaper articles still count as news, and not every violent crime in an old newspaper belongs in an encyclopedia. I do not see the relevance of the article Oxymoron to the discussion. Edison (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to Edison, many newspapers are in the process of converting their archives to the web, nothing gets deleted anymore. The fact that a news report from 1975 is still hanging around demonstrates nothing other than it was news in 1975. Residual trances of a news event on the web 30 years later do not suddenly make something notable simply because the original paper reports have been converted to electronic format. WP:NOTNEWS still applies - although it is extremely out of date news, it is still news nonetheless. Debate   木  21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability seems to have been established. This needs cleanup and inline cites, but not deletion. Also, before it ends up here at AfD anyway, Joseph Didier should be redirected to this article as per the usual outcome. Jim Miller (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Joseph Didier is already up for AFD, this is simply a recreation that avoids speedy deletion per CSD G4, a policy which mainly applies after the article is deleted, wasting the time of a bunch of editors again debating exactly the same issues... Debate   木  21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming that the result of the other discussion will result in Delete. You might be right, but I'm not so sure. In any case, this discussion, although strongly related to the other discussion, is at the same time significantly different. The issue in the other discussion is whether Joseph Didier is a notable person per WP:BIO. The issue in this discussion is whether the murder of Joseph Didier is a notable event. The two are related, but substantially different in the sense that they revolve around different notability policies. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but both articles are written by the same person, the content is almost exactly the same except for one sentence that essentially says "because this happened in 1975 there will not be onlie references." It's a newer user, so I'm assuming good faith, but it's essentially a poorly planned attempt to get around the first AfD.  Ani  Mate  01:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if I was assuming good faith I would assume that s/he made the article not to "get around" anything, but in response to the suggestions at the other afd.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for missing the earlier AfD for the other article. That was my oversight. As I noted at the other AfD discussion, WP:ONEEVENT is very clear that we should cover the event, not the person. I also recommended an appropriate Redirect on the other AfD once I found it. I do not believe that either article meets the requirements for a speedy delete. The two seperate proposals must be determined on their own merits. This discussion is completely about the merits of whether this article complies with policy. I will assume good faith that this article was created for the sole purpose of complying with WP:ONEEVENT. I still believe this article it meets the policies put forth in WP:5P. The AfD on Joseph Didier should be redirected according to WP:ONEEVENT which tells us to cover "the event, not the person." Only one of these AfD discussions should be used to determine the policy implications of the substance covered. The guidelines say that Murder of is the preferred article for inclusion. This article is the one that should be used to determine whether the event meets WP:V or not. Also, it is a very big stretch to try to apply CSD G4 to an article that has not yet actually been deleted, regardless of the duplication of content. G4 does not apply to articles that have not actually been deleted yet. I reiterate my Keep position because the article still meets WP:V. Jim Miller (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable murder. Every murder will affect the community in which it happens in some way.  D C E dwards 1966  16:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. In 1975, in a city with relatively very little crime, a little boy gets murdered under extreme circumstances. The reliable sources attest to the significant effect it had in the community and surrounding region. This is incomparable to other places where murder is far more common. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 16:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

*Delete Not notable and it appears the author is trying to make an end run around the AfD for Joseph Didier. Ani Mate  18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No the author is NOT trying to make an end run around the AFD. The author thinks that the case for this article is much stronger than the Joseph Didier article.  The author plans to AFD only one of the articles, not both, not none. Presumptive (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the only difference between the articles is this sentence:It was featured almost daily for several months in many newspapers but this was before the internet was invented so there aren't many weblinks to the murder. You should have waited for the first AfD to play out, then taken it WP:DRV. You didn't even move the article, you duplicated it. Ani  Mate  02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.  Corvus cornix  talk  23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A sad event, but not notable as a murder, just as news. I live a ways up the river and have some knowledge of the community, and this topic has never come up. --Dhartung | Talk 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable murder event, delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Merge any useful information into Joseph Didier.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a valid option. The consensus (even me, the creator of the Joseph Didier article) seem to agree that this article, the MURDER of Joseph Didier should be the surviving article as it's the event that is regionally notable and the person wasn't notable prior to his murder (except to his family and friends). Presumptive (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep comment received by e-mail Contact me for verification. From S.W. excerpts "hi my name is ... it affected all of us then and now as we are reminded of it everytime he comes up for parole. wikipedia should not erase ...am sorry for all the hell you go through not just now but everyday.  S.W. is a reader/customer of Wikipedia. Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep comment received by e-mail Contact me for verification. From K.R. excerpts "I remember the case very well. I sure would not worry about what non americans care about the case or anything else they don't care about. K.R. is a reader/customer of WikipediaPresumptive (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, what the heck is this?? We're posting "votes" by anonymous proxy "editors" known only by their initials and posted here by the original author of the article nominated for deletion? Is this for real??? User:Presumptive, it is rather presumptive of you to think that we would accept these as valid comments. We won't contact you for verification, because frankly I think you're making these up. This borders on being something you'd be blocked for. I guess it's a form of ballot-box stuffing, but a clumsy effort, to put it mildly. If these people are really editors at Wikipedia (and I have my doubts), let them log on and post their own comments here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, these "anonymous proxy votes" are ridiculous. If we do not allow sockpuppets and meatpuppets on Wikipedia, we certainly cannot allow this sort of thing either. I suggest that these proxy comments be moved to this AfD's talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Even reading the article doesn't establish why this crime (albeit a very sad one) is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pinkadelica  04:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Massive copyright violation. The article is copied word for word from this website. Ani  Mate  07:17, 20 June 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.