Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ng Yuk Tim


 * 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. KTC (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Ng Yuk Tim

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable murder with no lasting effect. Fails WP:EVENT. Just a quick note the article has been blanked due to WP:BLP concerns. Click here to read it.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 21:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment No court has ruled that a murder took place - the title of this article violates WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Aside from the sheer implausibility of it not being a murder, the title does not warrant blanking the entire page. the title, in point of fact, is the only thing you haven't removed.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I renamed it and removed every use of the term "murder" per Andy's objection.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Still blanked.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 00:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah - if you remove the word 'murdered', and leave in assertions that a suspect committed murder, it violates WP:BLP, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, dude, do you need to blank the entire article to resolve that? If you think that instance should be removed or some other change be made, then make it. Deleting the entire article is an absurdly excessive way of handling such a concern and is not supported by BLP. Anyway, AfD is not the place for this discussion.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you didn't want your multiple violations of WP:BLP policy discussed here 'dude', you shouldn't have raised the matter in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per clear inability of commenters to establish a rationale for its deletion under Wikipedia policies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave a reason in my nomination. AndyTheGrumpy and The Devil's Advocate's BLP dispute is irrelevant to whether the subject passes our notability guidelines.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 01:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * delete just another tabloid headline. WP:NOTNEWS no indication of anything of significance .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violent deaths are all too common, and it is not our function to chronicle each of them.  Here, allegations have been stated as fact by Wikipedia; the investigation is ongoing; and there has been no determination of guilt. Even if there were, we do not need and should not have an article on this unfortunate death.  There is no showing of significance beyond the undoubted effects on the famiy of the victim, effects which can only be exacerbated by an article which collects lurid allegations from transitory local media and immortalizes them in a permanent international database easily accessible to all.  Kablammo (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is simply a case of unlawful killing (I will keep away from the question of whether it is determined to be murder for legal purposes). As Kablammo says, there are a very great many of them around the world every year (and Wikipedia is concerned not just with now, but also the past). Most are reported in the media and some (particularly of young women) more extensively than others, but the extent of the coverage is not necessarily related to whether they are more gruesome, more distressing to the relatives, etc. Wikipedia has adopted a practice by consensus that such events are not covered unless there is something outside the mere facts of the case to make them notable. That seems right, and inevitable, and I see nothing here that creates such an exception. There are BLP and other objections to coverage especially prior to the conclusion of a trial, as well but those will not arise without the article. --AJHingston (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much trouble. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, not notable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete because there is no reason to believe this is any more than a routine, if tragic, news story. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Glaisher  [talk]  09:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Significant coverage only lasted a few days. Hardly enduring significant coverage. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a police crime blotter. My condolences to the subject's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOTNEWS. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  05:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 18 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.