Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tia Rigg


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Tia Rigg

 * – ( View AfD View log )

as tragic as her death is and unfortunately young children get murdered by relatives quite regularly, I believe she fails WP:VICTIM. there was a coverage spike but no real longstanding notability. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Case was extraordinary and article is well-sourced; the convicted murder also getting a WLO adds more to the notability of the crime, and much of the article is indeed not about the subject herself, but the murder and murderer.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 11:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * using your logic, the article should be renamed to the murderer's name... That would fail WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see three significant coverage spikes, not one.— S Marshall  T/C 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this is a murder that gets 30 gnews in total. the spikes correspond to arrest, then sentencing then release of post mortem results. pretty much WP:NOT. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Horrible, ghastly, in all the papers, yes; encyclopedically notable or of any long-term significance, no. Wikipedia is not a list of gruesome murders. JohnCD (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - She passes ONEEVENT per trial, WP:NOT doesnt apply to basically any article in my opinion as Wikipedia per fact IS built on news. anyway she passes WP:Crime. Very notable murder, huge media attention. Google hits.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * see WP:GOOGLEHITS? How does she pass WP:CRIME? In what way is she very notable? Not every murder gets an article despite you thinking so. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not like WP:NOT, but it is policy, part of WP:NOT, and if you think it "doesnt apply to basically any article" you are simply wrong. That is not a useful keep argument. JohnCD (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were to remove all material on Wikipedia based solely on news we wouldnt have much of Wikipedia left. Why do we then even have a ITN section for example if Wikipedia is not news? The notnews argument and that policy makes no sense as it contradicts itself. Anyway NOTNEWS doesnt apply here anyhow.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you still haven't addressed: How does she pass WP:CRIME? In what way is she "very notable"? LibStar (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tia Rigg, were this a biographical article, is not notable. The criminal act - the murder of Tia Rigg - is notable: "Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources... If a matter is deemed notable, and to be a likely crime, the article should remain even if it is subsequently found that no crime occurred (e.g., the Runaway bride case) since that would not make the matter less notable." Keristrasza (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - NOT NEWS has to be the most misunderstood and misapplied piece of policy that WP has ever sprouted. It was written to apply to "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" - basically, tabloid celebrity tittle tattle. This was a notable crime, murder being a rarity in and of itself in the UK, leading to a rarely delivered whole life tariff. It clearly meets the requirements of WP:CRIME. I just hope this isn't going to herald the start of another "silly season" of NOT NEWS Afds being slapped onto murder articles. Keristrasza (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if murder were a rarity in the UK, but there are about 800 a year (and 16,000 in the US). I hope this isn't going to be the start of a silly season with articles about every one that makes a headline. JohnCD (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Around 600 in England and Wales, actually. A rate of approximately 13 per million of population. And child murders are significantly rarer. A damn sight rarer than your out of context figure of 800 implies. Have you seen articles about every one of them? Do people even try to create articles about every one of them? Has anyone ever argued for the inclusion of every one of them? No. Rigg's murder is notable. The circumstances, the relationship between murderer and victim, the resulting whole life tarriff, make this one of the tiny number of murders that receives coverage here. A handful each year. This is one of those that is notable. Keristrasza (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 13 per million x 62 million population = about 800 for the UK - your 600 is England and Wales only. Our numbers aren't in disagreement, but we aren't going to agree about how many of them deserve encyclopedia articles. Better let it rest and let others have their say. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Example of how WP:NOTNEWS is wrongly practiced.  If there is wide coverage of substance we should allow it, this is not a paper encyclopedia.  Yamaguchi先生 16:17, 9 May 2011 (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.