Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Joseph Didier (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. This debate took some sorting out before I could come to any kind of reasonable conclusion. There are valid arguments on both sides of the equation here, but the truth of the matter is that the arguments for deletion are both more numerous and more persuasive. Several arguments for keeping referenced essays pertaining to the age of the article itself, but as this was effectively a (now modified) copy of another article made while that one was under consideration for deletion, more time than is apparent has been given. Either way there appears to be consensus that this is not inclusion worthy. It has rightly been pointed out that a large amount of the debate arises due to inadequacies in our existing notability guidelines, but for better or worse this AfD is not the place for discussing the shortcomings of our guidelines and this article must still be held to its standards - and again, the consensus here is that it does not. Shereth 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

One murder of many every year, sad but not notable. Also per the delete arguments in the previous two deletion debates Articles for deletion/Joseph Didier and Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier. Debate  木  06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, as I said in the first AfD: "Sad, but the vast majority of single murders are not notable, and this one has nothing which sets it apart from the others." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 13:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete still not notable. A  ni  Mate  23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because the nominator shows that they are unaware of the situation. "one murder of many every year" is written.  However, the Didier kidnap and murder is, by far, the most notable murder in the area for the past 100 years.  Nearly 35 years afterwards, it is still known in the area and 14 times, huge community protests have prevented parole of the killer.  The article has already been improved.  A nomination just a few days after the 2nd AFD (this is the 3rd for the topic) is too much. Presumptive (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also consider WP:DEMOLISH as reason to keep. Presumptive (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the reason that the second deletion discussion is because you violated United States copyright laws and Wikipedia policies by a direct copy-and-paste job on the previous versio. The AfD was ended early with a speedy deletion. You fixed the copyvio, but not the notability problem. One of the sources you have givem is simply an online plea to keep the murderer from being paroled, and two others are mere reports of the parole hearing. Your comment above is an attack against the nominator, which is not allowed. You have not provided sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify what you have written, and much of it is laced with personal opinion, also not allowed. You have already been blocked once for various persistent violations of Wikipedia policy in regard to this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you are being so rude. Your facts are not true.  I just checked my block log.  I have not been blocked.  I also did not attack the nominator - read it again.  The murder is not just one of many, the area has few high profile kidnappings and murders like this one.  I don't know what to think when you already said two statements which are not true.  There are sources out there, many in print, not online.  Help find it, not just to think of reasons to delete it!  Already a suggestion was given and it was taken (re-written). Presumptive (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. User:Presumptive was not blocked, but he was reported to the admins' intervention board (AIV). (I think I got Presumptive crossed up with a nother troublesome editor on a separate AfD. My apologies.) However, Presumptive has sent messages to those who supported his cause in the previous AfD in an apparent attempt to rally support - see User talk:Realkyhick - so I posted the Not a ballot template above. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These people discussed it on their own free will and their own initiative on the previous AFD. Nobody told them to come to the initial AFD.  If you keep on nominating an article for AFD repetitive times, eventually you will wear people out and only you and the delete folks will come.  Please help out!  There is much to write about Didier! Presumptive (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should probably read WP:CANVASS. A  ni  Mate  03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * These people made comments only yesterday or so. These are people that understand the situation.  If you don't understand it, then you think it's only an insignificant murder.  The fact that many made comments yesterday or the day before means it's not canvassing.  Again, help me improve the article, don't keep thinking of negative comments! Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's not canvassing for people who support your position, why didn't you leave messages on every person who commented on the previous AfD? A  ni  Mate  03:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I only contacted people that I thought could improve the article and know how to stop repetitive AFD's. If you can help with the article, this would be appreciated. Presumptive (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional facts about notability: The fact that it draws so much community protests decades after the fact says something about it's notability. A lot of these Wikipedia murder articles are just recent sensationalism, something this article stands above and ahead of. Another fact is that the city has a population of only 150,000 but one hearing drew over 54,000 protests and petitions. That's a huge number. If Wikipedia only has things that all 6 billion people know about, then there will be few articles. This event was extremely notable regionally, it's not just a death that is quickly forgotten. Presumptive (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: While the article is better written than the previous version, the murder is still not notable.  D C E dwards 1966  03:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It has been implied in this and earlier AFDs on this topic that Rockford, IL is some kind of sleepy little village in which murder is rare, and the exceptions therefore notable. Brewcrewer, for example, in the last AFD argued that Rockford, IL was, "in 1975, a city with relatively very little crime". Presumptive also argues (above) that "The murder is not just one of many, the area has few high profile kidnappings and murders like this one." Although whether there are other "kidnappings and murders like this one" is a judgment call (in my view all murder is pretty horrendous) we can, however, be pretty certain that Rockford's overall murder rate is, in reality, somewhere between average and unusually high. Although it's hard to find statistics on the web dating back to 1975, we do know that there were 11 murders in 1980, 16 in 1990 and 11 in 2000. In 2005, in fact, Rockford's murder rate was more than twice the National average per 100,000 population, ranking 76 out of 381 cities. What we can say from all of this is that murder rates in Rockford actually appear to have been pretty stable at around or above the national average for at least the last 35 years. Unless there was some inexplicable jump in the murder rate immediately after 1975, we can be reasonably certain that there is indeed nothing whatsoever remarkable about Rockford's crime rates that would make this sad murder any more notable than any other murder anywhere in the country. Debate   木  07:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This analogy is not applicable though it's a novel one. I never said that Rockford had no murders then this one came along.  What is true is that of the many murders in Rockford, this is probably the most notable one in the past 50 years, possibly in the history of Rockford from 20,000 B.C. to 2008 A.D. Presumptive (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF AFD I've looked at AFD and there is no prohibition on suspending an AFD temporarily. Please allow me about a week to gather new facts to establish notability even more. After that when I am mostly done, the AFD can continue. This could be the cooperative way to improve the encyclopedia. ''The alternative is (if the AFD deletes the article) that I will recreate the article after a week or two and this will only create hard feelings. So let's agree to hold off the AFD for now.''

If you really want to delete the article during the week or so I am working on it, why not replace the article with a blank space and maybe a sentence or two (such as "This article is currently being re-written and some AFD participants have agreed to let this proceed). This is like blanking an article but the article remains in the history.  Then in a week or so, I'll present the re-done article that establishes notability even more and the AFD can proceed.

Once again, this is preferable to recreating the article and having the AFD delete people get mad because they think I am defying them. Presumptive (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You've had two different AfD's already, and the only reason you got the second one is because the first was closed early on speedy-delete copyright violation grounds. If the outcome of this AfD is to delete and you re-create the article, you will be blatantly violating Wikipedia policy and will be blocked. There is no precedent that I have ever seen for suspending an AfD to give an author more time. AfD's usually last five days, which is generally considered enough time to fix any problems - if they can't be fixed in that time frame, then the article deserves to go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable crime: the double murder in my hometown really was a murder in a sleepy little town, but it's definitely not notable, and this is even farther away. And I've never heard of suspending an AFD: has it ever been done for anything?  I can't imagine why we would here.  Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Clearly non-notable, sad but non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is in better shape than the previous versions but notability is still not established. Almost all the references are to the local newspaper Rockford Register Star and almost all of them occur only around the time of the disappearance/search/murder. Evidence of some wider national coverage is needed to demonstrate notability. Coverage should also be spread over a longer period of time than the time of the murder and the search, to avoid applicability of WP:NOT. To quote from WP:NOT:"Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." If it is correct, as Presumptive says, that this murder case is very notable, there will be a few subsequent references to it in the media/books extending beyond the period the event was taking place. Nsk92 (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is well taken but many of the references are not from 1975. There's references form 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008, etc. Presumptive (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then this needs to be made clear in listing these references. In fact, the customary WP format for a reference is to include the title of an article/news-story, the name of the publication where it appeared and the date it appeared. Nsk92 (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep no murder wshould be considered "unnotable" especialy when tere are hundreds of sources available proving that this alleged killing was notable. the graphic and grotsuque nature of the crime also makie it notable and gaurantee that is hsould be taken into consieration by many as being notable and WP:Verifiability. Smith Jones (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (repeatD) also due to WP:Policies WP:CHANCE, WP:DEMOLISH, WP:PNJCS, WP:BITE, and WP:V all say that this article should remain here adn given a chance to succeed. Smith Jones (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hundreds of sources available"? Please. If there were really hundreds of sources, we would not be even having this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, WP:CHANCE, WP:DEMOLISH, WP:PNJCS are not WP Policies, and not even guidelines but rather essays. Verifiability is not being questioned here, notability is. If it is shown that the event is notable, I'd be perfectly happy to let the article stay and be improved. Nsk92 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And please be more careful and do not remove the comments of others when adding yours, like you removed my comment in this edit:. Nsk92 (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry about that jeez the purpose of those essays/guidelines whatever was to establish that there is aj acceptable case for maintainign this article and giving it a time to be improved by the dedicated editor contributed it to it rather than automatically deleting it. No article has ever started of as Featured Article quality. Most articles started off as relatively poor quality and were graducally imrpoved by good work from hard editors. If we deleted every article that wasnt Featured Article quality we wouldnt have any ensyclopedia at all. Smith Jones (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Are there any publications of this in reliable sources outside or Rockford? If so, I think it should be a keep, though the tone of the article needs some editing still. If not, it's much more doubtful. DGG (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply a simple Google search yields hundreds of various sources referneicng or discussing the murder, some of which are undoubtedly written outside of Rockford. My brief Google search yields these sources simply on the first page alone
 * These sources, in conjucntion with the sources provided in the article itself, to me proves that htis article is at least notable. remembe,r just because an article isnt imemdiately relevenat to the entire planet doesnt mean its notable. The Virginia Tech shooting was rpobalby not of great relevance in Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka but that doesnt mean that it was not notable enough to get an article here. Smith Jones (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"*******I agree with your but I am not talking only about presnece on the Internet. THese movements are in rela life against the parole of Joseph Didier. All I am saying is to give this a chance and it should be deleted later if the creator fails. Smith Jones (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think the Va. Tech shootings got just a wee bit more coverage than this single-victim murder. Having said that, I think if Didier's murder had happened today in the cable-news and Internet's 24/7 news cycle era, it may have gotten a bit more play. A lot of things have changed in the intervening three decades. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * maybe so but just because the v-tech shootings are more notable than the Didier murders doesnt mean that the Didier murders deserve to be ignored or suppressed. the fact that I was able to dredge those many sources up there proves that this subject is at least notable enough for inclusion. Smith Jones (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to SmithJones: Only one of those sources is about the murder. Another is about the murderer being up for parole. A third is a classified ad from User:Presumptive trying to save this article (?!?!). There is a link to a picture of a person but no identification of the person. None of these sources indicate any notability whatsoever.  D C E dwards 1966  20:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * reply --- how is a news paper article not neveridence of notablity? Further to the point, if someone cares enough about htis subject to pay to take out a classified ad to garner support for it, doesnt that itself prove to be notable? We have articles on all sorts of movements that contriute to social chance such as the civil rights movement. surely anything that can achieve some sort of movement status is ntoable, especially when reported on by several credible journalistic sources??? Smith Jones (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to maintain civility about this whole thing, but it's becoming very difficult. This has apparently become some sort of personal campaign on the part of User:Presumptive and some friends of his/hers to keep this thing on Wikipedia. The classified ad this user ran is about as bizarre and as blatant a violation of WP:CANVASS as I have ever seen. Heck, why don't you just stage a rally in the town square? And for User:Smith Jones to equate this "movement" with the civil rights movement borders on the absurd. This whole affair has been blown completely out of proportion. I will say this one more time: Joseph Didier's murder was hideous and very sad, but it does not meet Wikipedia's standards — and I emphasize, Wikipedia's standards — for notability. Period. I appreciate that the Rockford paper did a fine job of covering this crime many years ago, as well as the triennial follow-ups when the murderer comes up for parole again. But very few other news media have given any significant coverage. And by longstanding Wikipedia precedent, murders of a single victim are not considered notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your point and i respect thay you are working so hard to be civil and respectful to a lowly 2nd class eidotr like myself, but i must protest you allegation. I have never met Presumptive before this and I noticed this only when this issue exploded all over the WP pages. TO be honest, i never really thought that the resistance to the deletion of the Didier page was equal to the Civil RIghts Movement but my purpose was that this issue mobilizes thousands of poeple to protest the parole of the killer even after many decades. I am not swaying this this article will ever be omnipotent or anything I am only saying that this article deserves to maintain its presence on the Internet since the only reasons being given for the deletion is that it is a single murder (Which are not always unnotable) and that it only affects one region of the world (which has never really been a reason for deleting in and of oitself.) Smith Jones (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A "presence on the Internet" is not a problem. This crime already has that. A presence on Wikipedia is entirely different. Anyone can post a web page on all manner of free hosting sites about this crime, and I think someone already has. But Wikipedia has higher standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per ANI and user Smith jones above. This is ridiculous. Presumptive acted in good faith and the article has quite a few references. Articles like this contribute to Wikipedia significantly and should not be deleted.-- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs ) 21:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Having read this thoroughly, I can't see why this is notable in Wikipedia terms. For the information of anyone who had the sense not to get involved in the spate of similar discussions, the notability of murder victims was discussed at spectacularly great length last year, and whatever argument anyone's likely to make was probably already made there. – iride  scent  23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I can see, ALL of the "Delete"s above are based on spurious reasoning and a simple statement that the subject is not notable. However, Notability is established by multiple, independent reliable sources, which this article has. WP:N and WP:V are established. There is no other reason to delete this other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason for deletion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Spurious reasoning"? Give me a break. I have stated my reasons quite clearly and they were certainly not spurious. I had two main concerns: one about the lack of coverage by media outside of Rockford and the other about whether coverage extended beyond the time of the event. The second concern has been largely addressed by Presumptive's reply but the first one has not. If evidence of wider coverage outside of the local media is demonstrated, I'll be happy to change my vote. Regarding WP:IDONTLIKEIT, again, that is certainly not my reason for a delete vote. On a personal level I feel a lot of simpathy for the victim of this crime and his family in this sad story and I can understand their desire to generate more publicity regarding this case, especially since the convicted murderer in this case is apparently up for a parole hearing every couple of years. But Wikipedia is not the right forum for doing that. If the topic passes WP:N, there is no problem with the article staying in. However, until and unless passing WP:N is demonstrated, I'll stick to my original vote. Nsk92 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A reader of ANI wrote "Something just isn't right there...Just an opinion, when someone's spare time is basically spent editing a page about a murder 20 years ago and argueing about why it's important there is something very wrong with that type of individual. Wow.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments to clarify misconceptions:
 * The above comment also shows how Seattlehawk94 has no idea about Joey Didier (peace offering: the user name says Seattle, not northern Illinois, so he/she has an excuse) Nearly every year, the story is brought up again on the news, in the newspaper, on TV, etc. This is not dragging up a 35 year old murder.  There have been well over 100 murders in the region since then but none of them has the continued publicity of the Joey Didier murder.


 * Even goggling Joseph Didier or Joey Didier comes up with over a million hits, more than Eve Carson (white college student murdered in 2008), a murder debated on Wikipedia and was kept. This may be because of the regional coverage of Joey Didier every few months.


 * Also of note (will be introduced into the article if it's not AFD'ed) is that Joey Didier is one of the few C class murders in nothern Illinois whose parole has always been unanimously denied. Most or all others have had some support by the parole board, such as a 9-2 vote or 7-6 vote, etc. (I located a reference to confirm this)  Joey Didier's killer/kidnapper has always been 11-0 in every of the more than a dozen times.


 * Also of note is the recent comments in the first AFD, exerpted here because the first AFD was just days ago.


 * Keep. This murder had a strong effect on the community (thus making it notable) as the reliable sourced provided by the article attest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * This comments are in italics to highlight (make it clear) that they are reported here by me. Presumptive (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're getting over a million ghits you're doing it wrong. Googling "Joseph Didier" OR "Joey Didier" returns a google estimate of only 5,390 hits. As is usual with Google, this is a vast over-estimate since if you scan through to the end of Google's list a couple of times (click the page '10' button on the bottom of the search) you'll find that Google only actually returns 324 unique hits, most of which are entirely irrelevant. Debate   木  08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I found it difficult to navigate through the fine points under WP:N, because, as written it is difficult to see if this person has or has not met the Wikipedia definition of notability. I took a look at WP:Notability (criminal acts), which, while not yet a policy, deals directly with this article, and does so in a way that I think is wise.  If you look under victims WP:Notability (criminal acts), it states that a victim of a crime in and of itself does not meet notability, even if they are the subject of a multitude of articles.  I suspect that someone is writing this policy to address this issue.  So, even if this article survives AFD, it may one day be in violation of [WP:N, and get deleted anyhow.  My personal opinion is that it does not meet the guidelines to meet encyclopedic notability, even if there is some current loophole that might somehow let it on here .... for the moment. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to above coment -- I agree thatwp:n is somewhat poorly writen for this particular instnace. however, this article is not about a VICTIM but about the CRIME, which negates your ealrie r point. Smith Jones (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response as Smith Jones points out, this seems to be more about looking for loopholes in policy than the actual notability issue. I will counter by referencing WP:Notability (criminal acts).  This section directly addresses the crime versus victims or perps.  There is a specific suggestion here that (in the event of a recent crime) to go to Wikinews first, and wait for significant national coverage.  Since this is not a recent crime, there should already by significant national coverage ... which based on the article there does not appear to be.  Unfortunately, this is not yet official policy, though I am concerned that inclusion of an article like this opens the door for supporting an article on virtually any violent crime that is significantly covered in the local press of any municipality in the world, no matter how large or small. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * addition to response' - specifically, and I quote from this policy-in-progress: This criterion means that multiple sources are required, not just multiple references from a single or small number of sources. It would therefore be insufficient to base an article on a series of news reports on a crime by a single newspaper or news channel. The requirement for national or global scope refers to how widespread the coverage of a topic is. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - whilst the murder clearly had a huge and devastating impact on the local community the harsh truth is that it still remains a local event and there is no evidence of any significant national or international notability. nancy  (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response -- NOT EVERY article has a huge imapact on the entire country or the entire world. there are many events such as the Virginia tech shooting, the Kitty genovise murders, and the murder of jack the Ripper that recieved coverage but only affected one pretticular region. I see no reason to delete this article based solely on the fact that it directly impacted only one area. It affects literally hundreds of thosuands of people and has been covered extensively by the media, which is really the main reason why the WP:n POLICY WAS written. The purpose is not to suppress or cover up murders that are poltically inconvenient or insignificant to editors. A little empathy for the victim is to required here; why should this murder be igored just because it happened in Rockwell and not, say, Northern Virginia or Los Angeles or New York CIty or Lodnon or elsewhere. Smith Jones (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not so much about impact but about national coverage. The Kitty Genovese was an important aspect in the discussion about bystander effect, Jack the Ripper was one of the first serial killers to beome part of the global conscience, and the Virginia Tech massacre was the largest school shooting in history. A  ni  Mate  23:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strike that. The examples you listed all had major impact outside of their regions. A  ni  Mate  23:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * i fail to see how. while i aprpreciate the impact of the Genovese/Ripper murders, but it prooves that this problem. The Didier murders sparked an enormous social movement dedicated to keeping Didier in jail to the point where everyt ime he got up for parole. This is at least as large as the impact caused by the Genovese stabbing which cause the bystander studies. And I still see that these events had only a local effect. Genovese's murder took place only in New York, Jack the Ripper's slottering of prostitutes took place entirely in inner-land London, and Va. TEch received a lot of coverage and was notable for its monstrosity but then again so was the Didier murder and both still only took place in one region. Come Smith Jones (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? This "enormous social movement dedicated to keeping Didier in jail" was actually a movement that involved members of one very specific community/are to keep a man named Robert Lower from making parole. You say you appreciate the impact of the Genovese/Ripper murders, but I'm not sure you do. Try googling them. Its an awful test of notability, but I think its appropriate in this case. If you're actually saying that the national and international coverage and impact of the Joseph Didier murder is anywhere near these, then clearly you do not appreciate the imapct at all. A  ni  Mate  00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Virginia Tech Massacre led to massive campus security efforts across the nation not to mention major international coverage. In China, for instance, the story was run front-page while that country experienced a campus mass murder in the same week that was buried inside most papers.  Further, the Ripper murders (note, not the murder of Ripper) has been a continous subject of debate particularly among historians and sociologists interested in the question of Victorian sexuality.  This Diddler murder was simply a local event. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * SmithJones - I have to take issue with your suggestion that "empathy with the victim" is a basis for keeping the article - this is an encyclopaedia, the key driver here is notability not sentimentality. I also object to your tacit implication that I (and indeed other contributors to this debate) am lacking empathy which is an offensive and baseless accusation. Let's try and keep this discussion grounded firmly in Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and steer clear of emotive arguments and ad hominem attacks. nancy  (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Per requests above for sources outside of Rockford.   gives 16 stories by my count in the Chicago Tribune.  Can't find anything in the NYT archive or google books.John Z (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Coverage over a one month period in 1975 still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Rockford is only a couple of counties away from Chicago - it's so close it's virtually a suburb. Debate   木  01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles date from March 5 to October 28 of 1975. The area and population that the Trib covers is much larger than Rockford's paper, hence its selectivity must be higher.John Z (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for stories, 2-3 stories appear in the Freeport Journal Standard every year. If you need help, contact the librarian at 1(815) 233-3000.  Several other newspapers have coverage.  There is also TV coverage even 35 years later.  This is truly an exceptional murder of the over 100 that have happened in the past few decades.  The others don't get such coverage.  The beauty of having a wikipedia article is that we can convert information in print to online so as to bring knowledge to the world.  If we only cite websites, then we are re-hashing stuff easily available and potentially just creating noise and recycled bytes. Presumptive (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The more important the news source, the farther removed from Rockford and the later in time, the better for notability.John Z (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep vote reaffirmed. Presumptives point are brilliant, and are for more accurate than the aspersions cast by the deletionists Smith Jones (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Smith Jones, it is not a vote, and its a little unorthodox to note your opinion as you are, twice. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per DCEdwards and WP:NOT. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep has plenty of references & etc.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteNot notable, it's a local story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable source attest that this murder had a longlasting effect on a region of a few hundred thousand strong population, thus making the incident notable.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, Merge/Redirect to Rockford, Illinois. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT is the best policy in dealing with this ... coverage was never more than local to part of one state, and the event itself was not itself covered for more than a short period of time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully point out a wrong statement, namely the story has been covered much more "than a short period of time". It continues to be covered since 1975, including 2008, 2007, 2006, etc.  This continual coverage is part of its notability.Presumptive (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * References, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the references being discussed up above refer to efforts of friends/family/local citizens to keep the murderer behind bars .... there is nothing notable about groups of people banding together to keep a convicted person behind bars when their parole comes up. They are sometimes covered in the press.  Also, there may be some local commemoration of the event.  Covering a commemoration is not the same thing as covering the event.  A Columbus Day Parade commemorates the lading of Columbus, but the landing and the parade are not the same thing, are not equally notable, and coverage of the parade is not the same thing as covering the landing of Columbus.   The commemoration may be notable and the event it commemorates may be notable, but just be cause something is commemorated, does not establish its notability, even if it is given a story every year in the local paper. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: for those doing the Googling, be cautious - it seems that there were two Joseph Didier murders, coincidentally, both of them in 1975. See this piece which mentions the Joseph Didier murdered in Denver, a crime which also seems to have attracted some coverage due to remaining unsolved for 26 years before convicted murderer Marvin Gray confessed to it. A number of the unique google hits mentioned by User:Debate above refer to this murder. --Stormie (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom et al. Notability hasn't been established. Although all murders are horrendous, wikipedia is not a news achieve nor is it an achieve of small campaign groups, however righteous their cause, if they cannot be shown to be suitably notable. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient notability. No non-local coverage of either the murder or the campaign to keep the murderer behind bars. Some of Smith Jones' "sources" given above make me wonder whether he actually read them. Huon (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment exactly WHAT is wrong with my sources??? Really Id like to see the reasons why they are being casually dimsissed. I have seen no reason to view my sources as being inferior or second-rate compared to the sources that are used on other articles. For Gods sake I've seen people use google searhes to support a pint in an article. If that is allowed to go on for months I see no reaso why my sources should be impeached. I ask of any of you to give me a reason, solid, npov reason, why any of my sources are inadequate for any reason or purpose. Smith Jones (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the article's sources satisfy WP:RS, though in my book they're not enough to establish notability. But the "sources" you listed above include this one, which says that a Joseph Didier co-authored an article on computer science. Relation to the article: None. I find it hard to believe that you read it and thought the victim of a 1975 murder might co-author an article written in 2004. Huon (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply i think isee your point although i dont see why one bad source makes all of the other ones unnotable. Besides, you have no way of knowing that the computer science article wa s originally written in 2004. It is common for articles to be reprinted in electornic format ever since the Intenret useage became commonplace. That could easily be what happened here; an article written a significant while ago in paper format was finally put on the Internet in 2004. Another possible answer is that this is a different Didier related to the Joseph Didier currently in prison for the murders. In that case it only adds to the notability of the articles subject since it proves that Didier was a prominent computer enthusiast in the 70s and may have been involved with the development of such scientific advances as the Arpanet. I still think that, even if that particular source is irrelevent, the other ones remain relevant enough to confer notabiltiy to the subject. Smith Jones (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Smith Jones - you seem to be confusing the victim (Didier) with the perpetrator (Lower). Didier is not in prison, he is dead. Lower is in prison. Didier was 15 when he was killed, hardly likely to have been a prominent computer enthusiast.  nancy  (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * it appears that you are correct. But my original point still stands; there is no evidence that Lower was not a prominent computer enthusiast or that Didier's relative could be involved with computer scientific evidenced in the article regarding the Internet that I cited above. I still see no way that any of the anti-Didier article people can argue that it is impossible for either of them to have been involved in computer research and that their families were completely uninvolved either. Smith Jones (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is all very interesting but what I am struggling to fathom is what this speculation has to do with establishing the notability of Murder of Joseph Didier? nancy  (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IT does not relate directly oto the notability of the article. HOWEVER it does address the veracity of one of my sources and thus proves that Didier or Lower were notable and that their crime was notable under WP standards. Smith Jones (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, not sure if I have this straight, but I think that you are saying that if you provide a random web-page which happens to contain the word Didier then that somehow makes Murder of Joseph Didier notable? nancy  (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * hm it is clear that you have not understood both WP:N and the explanations have been given regarding the multiple sources I have provided throughout this entire AFD regarding the notability of the articles subject. Please, reread my explanations and the policy backings I have cited if you have time and forward any questions to me either here on my talk page. Smith Jones (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Smith Jones .... did you just say to an administrator ''it is clear that you have not understood WP:N? That is not a cool thing to say to anyone, but definitely not something you want to go throwing out to an admin .... especially when they have demonstrated that they do understand WP:N.
 * Two posts ago, you state But my original point still stands; there is no evidence that Lower was not a prominent computer enthusiast... I think this goes to the heart of a misunderstanding that you are having.  You are correct, there is no evidence not proving his involvement in computers, but that's because you can't prove that.  In order to do that, we would need to find an article or other written evidence that says "Lower was not a computer enthusiast."  The burden or proof on establishing notability is on the editor(s) trying to do so.  You cannot come in and say "well ... its up to you to prove that he is not notable."  That would require looking for evidence that never existed in the first place.
 * I respect your passion, but I have to say that I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, delete the article if you want. i dont care anymore. ive wasted so much valuable time arguing this point and its clear that no matter what evidence i bring to bear it will be ignored and other aspects of my posts will be attacked. You can delete this article if you want or keep it if you want. I won't reply any more after this. Smith Jones (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete After reading the article and the arguments as well as Wikipedia's guidelines on notability I cannot see this as being notable. It was a horrible crime but that in itself does not make it notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmsb (talk • contribs) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Areas of agreement Despite some hostility, I think there is a certain amount of agreement. At first there was a misunderstanding about references.  Now, I think there is agreement that there are at least two dozen online references dating from 1975-2008 (my estimate is that there are over 150 references but the AFD is too short for me to get them).  (There is also agreement that the event happened and that it was horrible).  There is a differences of opinion on the notability.  I presume (no pun intended) that everyone believes the references that there are huge protests every year about this killer, that this is a special Illinois C-class killer (there aren't many of these) that is reviewed by the parole board every year, and that most of the C-class killers are not rejected by the IPB by a 11-0 vote (but Didier's killer has always been), that the city has only about 80,000 adults and one year 54,000 petitioned or wrote protests against parole (this is a record but I am awaiting written confirmation), and that there is multiple references from many sources in different areas but that the recent coverage has been from multiple local sources (newspapers and TV).  So I think there is a lack of consensus as to whether this qualifies for notability.

My personal conciliatory opinion is that the notability guideline is inadequately described and this has created unnecessary conflict. Even if it were better defined, there's a problem to whether it would promote news and new-ism versus history because guidelines seem to favor online news stories over print references. Therefore, a murder of 2009 is likely to meet a revised notability guideline compared to a murder of 1959, which may be an unintended product.

Some Wikipedia articles (kept, not AFD'ed) of the recently debated murders that have TV ratings appeal, such as young lady Eve Carson and nude model Zoey Zane, may not stand the test of time like Joey Didier. Will there be continued references in 2043, 35 years from now and will there be the widespread regional knowledge of the events like Joey Didier? Nobody knows the answer. If the women are not remembered or reported, then we would have come to the wrong conclusion to keep those and (if we delete Murder of Joey Didier) wrong to delete this article.

In short, I'm am sorry that there is a lack of consensus for notability probably due to the ill-defined WP:N guidelines or that the guidelines makes no mention of certain factors that some deem are notable. Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of conciliation, a well written analysis, nicely done. May I seriously suggest that if this article is deleted I concur with user:brewcrewer that an acceptable alternative would be to include some of the more pertinent facts in Rockford, Illinois, which might go some way to achieving your main aim here while not not triggering the same level of opposition that a separate article has, since WP:N does not apply to article content per WP:NNC. Debate   木  10:25, 26 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.