Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Maxwell Garvie


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buff  bills  7701  12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Maxwell Garvie

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No "historic significance [is] indicated by persistent coverage of the event" – WP:CRIME Technopat (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete By coincidence, I had just been reading the 5 pages in Kenneth Roy's new book that relate to this trial when this article appeared at WP:NPP; hence the reference. As to whether its recollection in that book meets WP:PERSISTENCE and whether the murder and trial were of lasting significance, I tend to think not. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete A much better search term is simply Maxwell Garvie which turns up quite a few references to the case, as in this one in the Daily Record. Persistent coverage there is, in the tabloid 'true crime' category, but I am still inclined to delete. There is nothing in the mere facts of the case to make it stand out from many other killings around the world every year, and I see nothing in the continuing coverage to suggest that it has passed into the popular culture or influenced the law otherwise. --AJHingston (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The case generated quite a lot of publicity in Scotland at the time, and it has received the occasional mention over they years. If there are 5 pages about it in a recently published book this is an argument against deletion.  I think the test is whether a case has generated persistent coverage, not judgements about the type of coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - definitly one of the most infamous cases in scotlands history. But needs an expansion etc. Basic WP:GNG covers this.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Searching for Maxwell Garvie on Google Books gave me several book sources  And if there are five pages focusing on it in a new book? That just proves the notability.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article certainly has significant coverage. However, it needs to be expanded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The Scotsman assessment quoted in line 1 is sufficient cause to keep it. It certainly needs expansion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It's attracted continuing press and media interest over more than 40 years up to the present day, meeting WP:PERSISTENCE. Article desperately needs expanding, but there's lots of sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 25 November 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.