Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings


 * 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. Cavarrone's evidence of persistent, significant coverage has not been rebutted. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per continous coverage during the years, 2012, 2011 , 2010, 2009 (in the top 10 crime stories according to Time magazine). Also global scope is clearly met, add to some of the sources listed above: Russia, England, Hungary, New Zealand, Danmark, Chile,Italy, Italy#2, Brasil.... The case is also covered in the book Praey to God (2011) and was yet mentioned in an editorial article no later than a month ago . Cavarrone  07:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep - Per the above stated facts. and it has been deemed notable before.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete no lasting significance of this crime is demonstrated. The coverage is what you would expect of a crime like this, the crime is not notable; there is a good case to be made that the individuals that were killed were notable in there own right and should have own articles; however the act of Murder is not on its own of encyclopaedic note.  LGA talk  edits   21:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * " The coverage is what you would expect of a crime like this" is an empty argument, a non notable crime is expected to be covered once in the 24-hour news cycle, in local papers, and/or never come up again. A non notable crime is not covered in international press and does not receive coverage that lasts over years in major newspapers and magazines. We have a specific guideline to judge (crime) events and this one passes several criteria of WP:EVENT. Cavarrone 21:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * comment There are questions on the notability as an event. "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Doubtful it has served as a catalyst or precident. Scope is unlikely to be significant. The coverage, though long lasting, has it been in depth or just routine, reminding people of the case, its unsolved nature and an overview of the event? Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lasting effect is most probably not met here. Lasting effect is also just one of several criteria of WP:EVENT. An event is not required to meet all together the criteria, and lasting effect is the most rare and difficult to meet. If we would pretend to cover just events that are "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" we'll just have a dozen of events covered in WP. Other criteria of WP:EVENT are surely met, see WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:PERSISTENCE. Cavarrone 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree totally; the "Lasting effect" criteria is the fundamental criteria in WP:NEVENT as it is derived directly from the wording in WP:NOTNEWS policy "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." in order to have enduring notability an event has to have a lasting effect.  LGA talk  edits   20:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, don't shout. Second, we have multiple criteria at WP:EVENT because lasting effect is not sufficient to judge the notability of an event. "To have enduring notability an event has to have a lasting effect" is a laughable POV, non-policy based argument, if true we would have WP:LASTING as the only criterium to judge the inclusion of an event in WP. The simultaneous meeting of WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:GEOSCOPE is a proof of enduring significance not less than WP:LASTING. Cavarrone 21:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that everyone take a look at WP:NTEMP. It covers this.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't - NTEMP does not apply to events, which have their own set of rules.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point, but unfortunately significant coverage has yet been determined. The coverage must not be routine, has that been established? One editor claims it meets GEOSCOPE, how so? Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The case received a lot of significant coverage, eg. found in a three minutes search a 16 pages indepht article by Tru TV, a 5 pages investigation by Oprah.com, one-year-later-insights from People Magazine, a feature length article in Newsweek, commentary by The Huffington Post,a whole episode of Dateline NBC (episode 18x72, "No Safe Place"), more insights. With no mention to all the international coverage listed above, these national-wide sources yet meets GEOSCOPE, which refers to event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region. Cavarrone  05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources by User:Cavarrone. Clearly event of lasting significance and impact, meeting WP:PERSISTENCE, covered in lots of reliable sources. Meets WP:EVENT. No clear advantage to our readers or the encyclopedia in removing such well sourced, policy-compliant information. -- cyclopia speak! 20:22, 24 August 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.