Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tessa Majors


 * 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. Those who believe this should be deleted do so largely on WP:NOTNEWS grounds. As a policy this deserves additional weighting in a discussion over a guideline (which the General Notability Guideline clearly is). However, those who believe this should be kept dispute the idea that this article and the sourcing available fails NOTNEWS and do so from some basis in policy and practice. As such there is not a weighting argument to be made to override the apparent keep consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Tessa Majors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Obviously a tragic event, but if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year. There were 562 murders in New York in 2019. What makes this one unusual? Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So Tessa's case got attention because she's white? Sure. And not because she was an eighteen-year-old who was brutally stabbed and murdered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "What makes this one unusual?" Please see Missing white woman syndrome. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes along with her being pretty, young, and well-off. If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe you'll find this one has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, thus clearing the GNG. Keep. Enwebb (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, WP:NOTNEWS, point #2. If you were correct, every single murder in any Western (i.e. Internet-rich) country would pass the requirements for an article.  Why is this one important? Black Kite (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Some murder victims get more coverage. "Tessa Majors" has over 8 million hits on Google. This has also drawn comparisons to the Central Park 5. Per WP:EVENTCRITERIA "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." Enwebb (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hits in google might not be reliable. like from reddit etc etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How about from the New York Times   , NBC , CNN , Time , Washington Post ...This clearly has widespread national impact and is widely covered in diverse sources per WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Enwebb (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete "murder"/"killing" happens in daily basis, clearly WP:NOTNEWS applies here. We have deleted many articles with more much covarge from the media like here. Agree with Black Kite, "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year."--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The difference between this and any other murder, as is key with any event, is notability. Subject clearly meets WP:NCRIME. Tessa Majors murder has made national news since it occurred several months ago and developments on the case continue to make headlines. . A deletion discussion would likely have failed when the story broke in December, based on how it was seized on by reliable sources at that time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it might be appropriate for you to familiarize yourself with the policies regarding WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY before participating in deletion discussions. The only relevant criteria here for notability is attention in reliable sources. Trying to turn this into a debate about whether or not notability is deserved, or whatever you and User:Black Kite are getting at, is disruptive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have been in deletion discussions a lot. Many events get attention from the media when they occur or during the trials. However, wikipedia is not a newspaper, we dont create articles for such events. Only events that will likely be notable even after 10 years from the end of the event. There is nothing that shows why this article will be notable after lets say 5 years after the trials end.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. This article clearly meets the sourcing requirements for WP:GNG. Speculations about the future are not grist for a legitimate deletion discussion. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My point stands, there is absolutely nothing that shows why this murder is different from the murder that happened yesterday or before yesterday in the U.S. and why it should have its standalone article WP:NOTNEWS.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS relates to either 1) routine coverage or 2) original reporting. The provided sources on this are neither. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article's lead I don't see why we have a standalone article about this. A random student killed by random people and the alleged motivation is robbery, tragic, but happens all the time in the U.S., this is why I said Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't write standalone articles for stuff like this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a really big case that has been followed by tens of millions of people all over the country and heavily reported on. Also, I find that it is having an impact on society. It is a socially significant case and the page on it should stay. LaraGingerbread (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)LaraGingerbread
 * Black Kite This case is different than other because of the reasons I described above. It has been heavily publicized and closely followed by tens of millions of Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaraGingerbread (talk • contribs)

Keep per WP:SUSTAINED. This has been receiving ongoing, widespread coverage. BonkHindrance (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is established and one of the suspects is 14 and will be tried as an adult for 2 counts of murder. A rare occurrence that a teenager will face life in prison in NYS Slywriter (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How does a story about random person who got killed by random people and the alleged motivation was robbery deserve a standalone article?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * see WP:EXHAUST. Other editors have explained why this article is covered by WP:GNG --BonkHindrance (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Ultimate, Delete-argument-death-punching Keep. Statements like "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year" and "there is absolutely nothing that shows why this murder is different from the murder that happened yesterday or before yesterday" erode deletion discussions and wastes everybody's time, because they comment on the topic, not its notability. Literally all sorts of nonsense gets covered on Wikipedia because there are professional sources talking about it. This is not debatable; the subject ENTIRELY MEETS notability guidelines and has surpassed being just WP:ONEEVENT. HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now – The event occurred less than three months ago, so it's very difficult to judge whether coverage is WP:SUSTAINED or not. I think the nom has a pretty good argument, and I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, coverage did not remain SUSTAINED, and I might find myself a delete !voter. But if a three-month window is all there is to judge, while I didn't find any international coverage, the national news outlets like Time, People, LATimes, WaPo, USAToday, Fox, and NBC have covered this in December and in February, and some ran stories in January, some have run 4+ stories. I'm counting NYT as local media; the local media have been running regular updates. So it's not WP:LOCAL, and it's about as SUSTAINED as it can be. The reason why this particular killing is notable, Missing white woman syndrome is one explanation. Another is that this case is very reminiscent of the Central Park Five case, and that is a defining case in US cultural history (specifically race relations), especially in New York City, but really throughout the US. RSes have noted that connection, as does our article. Murders do happen every day in the US, it's true, but it's not every day that a white college student gets stabbed to death in a park a few blocks from a private women's liberal arts college, at 7:00 p.m., allegedly by a group of black teenagers in a robbery gone wrong. That really does not happen every day in the US. The killing happened in the Morningside Heights neighborhood, which is the border between the affluent, white Upper West Side neighborhood, and the very much less affluent, very less white Harlem neighborhood. This case involves class, race: allegedly, a group of poor black boys (teenagers) killed a rich white girl (18-year-old college student) while trying to rob her of her phone. It's a "hot button" story, and well-covered by national media, at least for now. I'm not sure if it'll pass the WP:TENYEARTEST, it's just too soon to judge, so I say keep for now. – Levivich 08:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG. I agree it may be recentism, so re-evaluation should come later. —МандичкаYO 😜 09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep easily meets GNG. The nominator makes no policy based reason for deletion. I do agree this is a tragic event. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy. ——  SN  54129  13:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Reminder This thread is not the appropriate place to make value judgments related to whether or not the event deserved attention. WP:INTERESTING/WP:IDONTCARE. WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE arguments need to make reference to sources. The sole question is whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sole question is whether or not the subject meets WP:GNG This is simply wrong: GNG is a guideline, NOTNEWS is a policy. An enormous number of things generate brief bouts of news coverage that could satisfy GNG but fail to be appropriate topics for an encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite so, and even within WP:GNG, the WP:NOPAGE guideline tells us that some topics which pass the notability criteria don't merit a standalone article. This would be such a case - it could usefully form part of Crime in New York City, since many media sources frame its significance in terms of that parent topic. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't this be an "appropriate topic[s] for an encyclopedia"? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per SN54129 (WP:NOTNEWS). --JBL (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Wikieditor19920. Loksmythe (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable murder case, with plenty of available sources. Dimadick (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:EVENT, specifically clause 4 (emphasis mine): 'Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.' There is nothing currently about this story that gives it enduring significance. That it's been widely reported on is not relevant; a crime making the news does not confer inherent notability. There has to be something more. Something like the Lindbergh kidnapping makes the cut, not just because of who was kidnapped and the amount of books and material written about the case, but because the results of the act caused kidnapping to become a Federal offense. The disappearance and murder of Amber Hagerman, which was a motivation behind the creation of the Amber alert, doesn't even have her own article; it's a subsection of the Amber alert article. Currently there's nothing to indicate that this specific death even rises to the level of Hagerman's death. It's making the news cycle but WP:NOTNEWS. If that changes, the article can be restored, with proper emphasis on what about this event gave it enduring significance --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * By no stretch is the coverage that this story has received "routine" as if it were only published in a crime blotter. To dismiss the degree of coverage this crime has received in national outlets over a sustained period is to ignore all relevant guidelines on deletion discussions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The guidelines in WP:EVENT explicitly state that it applies even if the event was widely reported at the time. That the topic of the article has made the news is not being contested; however it is not relevant for the AfD by itself. What is the enduring significance of this specific event? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on what you mean by "at the time". December was the time of the event, but national news outlets are still reporting on it months later. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have... we can't judge whether or not this will have enduring significance (WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that). It took years after the murder of Hagerman ffor Amber Alert to become a law. If you think we are still "at the time" in February, and apply a rule that it must have demonstrable enduring significance, we could never cover breaking news stories. Levivich 19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT doesn't apply to all breaking news stories; it specifically calls out a case just like this one (a crime/death that has been widely reported on.) What I don't see is: what about this case is giving it the "enduring significance" to pass the bar? The news articles have a burst of coverage around the time of the death in December, and around the time of the recent arrests. It's hardly enduring when there was a two month gap with no real press coverage. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument gets to "making the news" and stops there, as if that's a reason for exclusion. This falls far short of the careful consideration required in deletion discussions. Mere recitations of buzzwords like "breaking news" and "bursts of coverage" without reference to facts are not proper arguments.
 * In addition to mischaracterizing the coverage as "routine," you are glossing over key criteria: WP:DEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE sources. The murder has been the subject of multiple in-depth pieces, including in the NYT, which compared it to the Central Park Five case. The coverage in national, reliable outlets has been sustained since the crime first occurred in December (the most recent Times piece was two days ago and is several pages long, far more than any routine announcement. There was no "two-month gap" in press coverage. Stories and developments were periodically reported on (heavily) throughout January.It has been covered in local and national outlets from the Daily News to the New York Times to CNN International and CBS, among many others. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Vern let's look at EVENT real closely. "Enduring significance" is not a requirement under EVENT. It's just WP:EVENTCRIT#1, there's also WP:EVENTCRIT#2: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). EVENTCRIT also guides us that In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: . These factors are described below.
 * Impact : WP:LASTING This is the "enduring significance" part. It's true that it's too soon to judge whether this event is LASTING. Symbol delete vote.svg However, LASTING says It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
 * Depth : WP:DEPTH is not a problem. There are feature stories in national outlets like Time magazine, USA Today, LATimes, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, all three networks (CBS, NBC, ABC)... no major news outlet has not run in-depth (feature-length) coverage of this story. Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Duration : WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: We have coverage throughout December, January, and February. Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Geographical scope : WP:GEOSCOPE: Time, USA Today, CNN, etc., are national. LATimes and WaPo also shows national interest. Wide geographic scope. Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Diversity : WP:DIVERSE Every major national news outlet, plus every local outlet, has covered this story; it's not just one newspaper or one media company. Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Reliability : WP:RS: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, WaPo, NBC... these are all reliable sources. Symbol confirmed.svg
 * Routine : WP:ROUTINE is things such as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism ... Planned coverage of scheduled events ... Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, press conferences ... Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out. This is none of these (see my !vote above for the unique aspects of the facts of this case, in particular it's similarity to Central Park Five). Symbol confirmed.svg
 * This passes EVENTCRIT. Levivich 19:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let's go over this.
 * The Central Park Five case is especially notable because the teenagers originally charged did not commit the crime; it was committed by someone else, the convictions vacated and the teenagers sued, rightfully so. In the case we are discussing, there hasn't even been a conviction yet; in fact much of yesterday was spent removing the names of suspects from the article to the point where multiple editors intervened and two actions (WP:EWN and WP:ANI) brought against an editor. The similarities boil down to a young white woman attacked in New York City, and teenagers were charged. Even if they were closer in other ways, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not making the "all or nothing" argument here, we should consider things on a case by case basis. But this argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF which is not a good argument to be making in AfD.
 * Depth, diversity, (national) scope, reliability: Besides WP:NOTNEWS, see WP:109PAPERS (which is an essay, not policy or even a guideline); the articles published on February 15th from five different sources (CNN, NYTimes, USA Today, Columbia Spectator, and NBC) are substantially identical coverage of the same event in this case (the arrest of a suspect.) That is not surprising, if something is in the news, then most newspapers will carry an article about it, either from the wires or having a staff writer work on it. That doesn't confer inherent notability.
 * Duration: There was heavy coverage when the crime happened in December. There has been heavy coverage in the past few days due to arrests. Coverage in January appears to be light, due an arrest early in the month. Again, not surprising if you look at this as a news story; there was not much to discuss. It's barely been two months since the attack and we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know if we have the duration of coverage beyond the initial attack and news developments as they come out. That doesn't sound like duration; that sounds like what you'd expect from the news cycle from most stories, such as routine crime stories per WP:EVENT.
 * Again, this is an AfD; it does not mean that there cannot be an article on this case if it does meet the criteria for WP:EVENT in the future. I don't see anything about this case given what we know that indicates that this will change, and since notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP, we should take an approach to determine whether the notability of this case is permanent. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman. I've linked to other pages about crime victims and events, both here and in the main article's talk page; those all have lasting significance; the reasons are different for each. Sometimes even a missing person's story like Maura Murray takes on a life of its own. I think those cases easily meet the bar of lasting significance. Note what I am not saying is that this case won't have lasting significance. It's too soon to tell. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This passes EVENTCRIT. Levivich 19:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let's go over this.
 * The Central Park Five case is especially notable because the teenagers originally charged did not commit the crime; it was committed by someone else, the convictions vacated and the teenagers sued, rightfully so. In the case we are discussing, there hasn't even been a conviction yet; in fact much of yesterday was spent removing the names of suspects from the article to the point where multiple editors intervened and two actions (WP:EWN and WP:ANI) brought against an editor. The similarities boil down to a young white woman attacked in New York City, and teenagers were charged. Even if they were closer in other ways, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm not making the "all or nothing" argument here, we should consider things on a case by case basis. But this argument is just WP:OTHERSTUFF which is not a good argument to be making in AfD.
 * Depth, diversity, (national) scope, reliability: Besides WP:NOTNEWS, see WP:109PAPERS (which is an essay, not policy or even a guideline); the articles published on February 15th from five different sources (CNN, NYTimes, USA Today, Columbia Spectator, and NBC) are substantially identical coverage of the same event in this case (the arrest of a suspect.) That is not surprising, if something is in the news, then most newspapers will carry an article about it, either from the wires or having a staff writer work on it. That doesn't confer inherent notability.
 * Duration: There was heavy coverage when the crime happened in December. There has been heavy coverage in the past few days due to arrests. Coverage in January appears to be light, due an arrest early in the month. Again, not surprising if you look at this as a news story; there was not much to discuss. It's barely been two months since the attack and we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know if we have the duration of coverage beyond the initial attack and news developments as they come out. That doesn't sound like duration; that sounds like what you'd expect from the news cycle from most stories, such as routine crime stories per WP:EVENT.
 * Again, this is an AfD; it does not mean that there cannot be an article on this case if it does meet the criteria for WP:EVENT in the future. I don't see anything about this case given what we know that indicates that this will change, and since notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP, we should take an approach to determine whether the notability of this case is permanent. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman. I've linked to other pages about crime victims and events, both here and in the main article's talk page; those all have lasting significance; the reasons are different for each. Sometimes even a missing person's story like Maura Murray takes on a life of its own. I think those cases easily meet the bar of lasting significance. Note what I am not saying is that this case won't have lasting significance. It's too soon to tell. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Duration: There was heavy coverage when the crime happened in December. There has been heavy coverage in the past few days due to arrests. Coverage in January appears to be light, due an arrest early in the month. Again, not surprising if you look at this as a news story; there was not much to discuss. It's barely been two months since the attack and we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL to know if we have the duration of coverage beyond the initial attack and news developments as they come out. That doesn't sound like duration; that sounds like what you'd expect from the news cycle from most stories, such as routine crime stories per WP:EVENT.
 * Again, this is an AfD; it does not mean that there cannot be an article on this case if it does meet the criteria for WP:EVENT in the future. I don't see anything about this case given what we know that indicates that this will change, and since notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP, we should take an approach to determine whether the notability of this case is permanent. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman. I've linked to other pages about crime victims and events, both here and in the main article's talk page; those all have lasting significance; the reasons are different for each. Sometimes even a missing person's story like Maura Murray takes on a life of its own. I think those cases easily meet the bar of lasting significance. Note what I am not saying is that this case won't have lasting significance. It's too soon to tell. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, this is an AfD; it does not mean that there cannot be an article on this case if it does meet the criteria for WP:EVENT in the future. I don't see anything about this case given what we know that indicates that this will change, and since notability is not temporary per WP:NTEMP, we should take an approach to determine whether the notability of this case is permanent. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore Missing white woman syndrome is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman. I've linked to other pages about crime victims and events, both here and in the main article's talk page; those all have lasting significance; the reasons are different for each. Sometimes even a missing person's story like Maura Murray takes on a life of its own. I think those cases easily meet the bar of lasting significance. Note what I am not saying is that this case won't have lasting significance. It's too soon to tell. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Mr. Vernon—the phenomenon of "missing white woman syndrome" doesn't have bearing on which articles are kept or deleted. Bus stop (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Well done. This is proper analysis w/ the relevant policy applied. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This meets WP:GNG and a high profile murder case. The article is well supported with reliable sufficient sources. Abishe (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and not "murder" - WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, killings are not uncommon, and newspapers pick up on stories that shock. We know why this one killing shocks. Also, murder is a legal term and no court has called it such. O3000 (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We know why this one killing shocks. I can only presume what's being suggested here. Any editor who openly disregards the guidelines on AfD discussions, which relate to sourcing and notability, and instead chooses to make wildly inappropriate suggestions about the race of the victim/accusers being relevant or other similarly off-topic considerations should be issued a warning. It is not the job of WP editors to offer their own analysis of events, and especially not in an AfD discussion. The keep votes have clearly and definitively established that the GNG criteria have been met. The discussion should end there, before this further devolves into a socio-political debate. WP:NOTFORUM. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Further, this is not the appropriate forum to dispute past consensus on article moves. WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, I said absolutely nothing about race and said nothing about a past consensus and sure as Hell am not FORUMSHOPPING. I made a !vote based on WP:NOTNEWS, which, AFAIK, I'm allowed to do. And no, discussion should not be halted after you are satisfied. WP:CIV O3000 (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? What did you mean to suggest by We know why this one killing shocks.? What do we "know?" And you are referencing a topic, the use of murder in the title, which a) we have already had a consensus on which you are aware of because of your participation there, and b) the title of an article has nothing to do with whether it should be considered for deletion. And finally, WP:NOTNEWS, applies to routine coverage. It is borderline tendentious to suggest that the level of coverage this subject's received is routine, as if all we were relying on here were a local crimeblotter. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to have me "warned" because you don't like my !vote, take me to AN/I. Meanwhile, be CIVIL. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * O3000—what are you saying when you say "We know why this one killing shocks."? Bus stop (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an attractive, young, college girl, in her freshman year, who's band just had its first gig, cut down at the start of her adult life. Now, how long is this badgering going to continue? O3000 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I was asking for clarification. Thank you for the clarification. I did not think that was "badgering". Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors beliefs about why this has been treated as significant are not relevant, only that it has been treated as significant. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. A good quality source says "Ms. Majors’s killing shocked the city, given that violent crime had fallen in recent years". WP:NOTNEWS allows for the coverage of "significant current events". I think the level of coverage in good quality sources suggests this should be considered a significant current event. Bus stop (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is why Wikipedia articles are made. These types of articles are important. 11S117 (talk) 19:07, 18 Febuary 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Re: the above arguments. IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep sustained and non-local coverage distinguish this event from most murders. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This AfD is near-disruptive, the media coverage is off the charts and yes, Wikipedia has articles on notable murder cases.--Pudeo (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS - "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". This murder, while clearly tragic and RIP to her, is not an encyclopedic event or of any particular noteworthiness compared to similar events, nor is it of any lasting significance. The links provided above, by those attempting to keep the article, show that the event is notable more in the context of violent crime in NYC generally, so Crime in New York City would be the encyclopedic topic here if any. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The logic here is hopelessly flawed. Most murders are not notable. This is a murder. Therefore, it's probably not notable. What distinguishes this crime is national and sustained coverage in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Pile on Amakuru! compared to similar events ... can you name one? nor is it of any lasting significance ... how do you know? Levivich (lulz) 15:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per arguments by Levivich and Wikieditor19920. I acknowledge Bus stop's point that part of the added shock in this case is the perception that a new era of high-crime rates in the city has now begun. I would add that the suspects being of such young ages (13,14) brings a highly irregular element to this case (see WP:MILL). StonyBrook (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, obviously notable. National coverage persisting in the months since the event.--Eostrix (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wikieditor19920. This has made news in Europe and created discussion here, as well. Almost Anonymous (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the reasons it received such widespread coverage was the suspects are just 13-14 years old. Only about 0.5% of people arrested for murder each year are aged 15 & under, and only a tiny fraction of those are accused of a violent, intentional homicide of this nature (the repeated stabbing of a stranger). The fact the victim was also a teenager, and that she was murdered in a public park on a weekday afternoon (5:30pm), also contributed to the significant interest. It does seem like race & class were factors, but neither of those things are usually enough to garner this kind of coverage. In my opinion, the case is clearly notable.Chrisz2264 (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete At some point, some teeth have to be put into WP:NOTNEWS, which other have noted is an actual policy, as opposed to notability guidelines. Missing white woman syndrome is a valid thing, and editors should be able to weigh sources that are simply piling upon one another in sensationalist fashion. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This will be my last comment on the matter. A number of users have asserted that WP:NOTNEWS unequivocally requires deletion because if it's in the news, it's somehow not notable. WP:NOTNEWS simply means that it is not sufficient that a topic has received coverage in the news to indicate that it is notable. This most clearly applies to routine coverage, such as a tabloid or crimeblotter. That's simply the first step in the inquiry, not the last. What a user should then look to are diversity and prominence of sources, the level of coverage given, and the period over which the incident continued to receive coverage in RS. I won't reiterate the arguments for those aspects of notability, because User:Levivich has already clearly articulated why the subject meets each of those criteria above. A qualitative assessment that goes outside of source coverage, which is highly subjective and vulnerable to NPOV problems (such as the suggestions here that the crime is only notable because of the victim's race), should only ever make a difference at the margins. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Levivich's comment regarding WP:EVENTCRIT. As for the delete !votes that are directly or indirectly alluding to Missing white woman syndrome, keep in mind that we are not here to right great wrongs. It's not our place to judge whether a particular event deserves media attention or not, we can only report on what has been published by reliable sources, and reliable sources have deemed this case notable enough to give it significant coverage. Surachit (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as an ongoing event with continued coverage in the media. There was a story just this week in major papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG + coverage. -- Jezebelle  20:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Crimes like this are bound to get a lot of coverage for a couple of weeks. This should not be used as a bypass for WP:GNG, rather WP:EVENT clarifies that in order to satisfy GNG requirements an event should have long lasting coverage. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ”A couple of weeks”?? You mean 12 weeks (Dec-Feb)? And EVENT specifically says an article on a current event shouldn't be deleted simply for lack of long lasting coverage. Do you think this article meets the other parts of EVENT? Levivich (Talk) 03:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Levivich The EVENT guideline states that Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.. Now what enduring significance does this murder have? Any laws enacted? Anything changed in the future due to this murder? Of course, it is tragic, but it is just routine coverage of a murder. Wikipedia does not cover every murder, wikinews does. There were multiple suspects, so it is routine for newspapers to cover each suspects arrest, which were weeks apart. Hence, the 12 week coverage. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * —you are saying "There were multiple suspects, so it is routine for newspapers to cover each suspects arrest, which were weeks apart. Hence, the 12 week coverage." You may not be appreciating the full enormity of the incident. Tessa Majors is no longer alive but the 3 young suspects are facing the possibility of tragic lives if they are found culpable for the death of the victim. At the risk of sounding melodramatic there may be 4 "victims" in the incident reported about in this article. And the impact on the lives of the 3 suspects may be ongoing. Bus stop (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Levivich. This is also notable because there is now in the news a what some would say an increase in crime in the NYC area and this is an example of that and this is in the news for that reason, a poster child news story. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lots of reliable sources. Maybe the article was created a bit prematurely, but this seems to be high-profile. I would suggest leaving the article as is, then considering deletion (if appropriate) at a later time. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2020 (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.