Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Adam Lloyd and Vanessa Arscott


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus reached as to whether it meets or fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and how WP:DIVERSITY factors in. The question of what is lasting coverage was also a point of contention. However, no consensus reached. NativeForeigner Talk 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Adam Lloyd and Vanessa Arscott

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It would have been helpful if the nominator had said why he couldn't prove notability - searching on the two victims' names, GNews provides dozens of substantial items from reliable sources. The one thing that might stop this meeting WP:GNG is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, as while there was plenty of coverage at the time of the murders and during the trial, there has apparently only been a trickle since. Even at that, given that there was something like two years between the murders and the end of the trial, I would tend to feel that coverage was lasting enough to avoid WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - but I appreciate that this is a point on which there may well be conflicting views. PWilkinson (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete - seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.--Staberinde (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is a strange guideline as Wikipedia is baed on news and sometime even the source of new. anyway.. lasting coverage beyond WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Covers it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've looked, and couldn't identify any in-depth lasting coverage later than the verdict in 2005. It's possible that cases like this may be invoked as examples in discussions of crimes against tourists or by policemen, but this case doesn't seem to stand out in any way. The murder of Christy Sarah Jones, which remains unsolved after twelve years and is still getting coverage, would seem much more notable. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I cannot decide whether to recommend "weak keep" or "weak delete". The event and its aftermath seem to fail the WP:PERSISTENCE section of WP:EVENT, but it appears to have received a flurry of international coverage as noted above suggesting that it passes WP:DIVERSE. Location (talk) 19:21, 31 January 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.