Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Sumarti Ningsih and Jesse Lorena


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Murders of Sumarti Ningsih and Jesse Lorena

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This doesn't need to be here. It is a news story with little significance except for the higher level of news coverage it has garnered. Ksoth (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 4.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 17:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It cannot be known that this event will not receive further coverage; however, as per my reasons that follows, this article should not be deleted in haste; WP:RAPID. It has diverse sources - many independent Hong Kong newspaper and television shows report on this event, and has gained enough notability to be reported on multiple UK newspapers, and international news networks such as Bloomberg, CBS News etc; WP:DIVERSE WP:GEOSCOPE. There are in-depth coverage, such as reactions from a victim's father, reported on the BBC, and comparisons between the death, and the novel and film ‘American Psycho’ are often made on different newspapers and on Twitter.  This article was created on the 3rd November, 2014, two days after the event, after there is evidence of consistent coverage. It was not breaking news. WP:BREAKING. It is also of historical significance because this type of murder is rare in Hong Kong.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not really matter if it will receive future news coverage. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It is a local new story (and this article reads as such) about (alleged) prostitutes being murdered, with no real significance beyond the fact that it is receiving news coverage, and just because it receives a high amount of news coverage close to the event occurrence does not mean it is a notable event. To be honest, in several years no one (besides people directly involved) will likely care about this new story. It does not mean it is "historically significant" because this type of even is rare in Hong Kong. It might be locally significant, and is therefore the place of media sources to report it as news. -- 17:51, 4 November 2014‎ Ksoth
 * Yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper that records every news event. But this event is, IMHO, notable; and I have outlined my arguments above and will not repeat myself, I have based them upon standards set by the Wikipedia community. If you do not believe it is notable, please outline your arguments objectively - 'To be honest, in several years no one (besides people directly involved) will likely care about this new story.' is subjective. I understand that you do not believe this event warrants such widespread coverage, and I agree with you to a large extent; but the fact is, it is not your opinion or my opinion of whether this is important that matters, it is the general worldwide public's opinion that matters. The event is receiving a lot of persistent attention, and meets the notability guidelines, and thus the article should stay.  We agree to disagree, and I hope this article do not get deleted, but if it does, please move it into my userspace, many thanks.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 20:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You point out that my statement is subjective, but in your own post use "IMHO", which is just as subjective. Plus your arguments are not valid. You used the tag WP:GEOSCOPE. Wikipedia defines this as "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." This incident has not, and likely will not, have a significant impact anywhere besides Hong Kong. Even then, it's effect in Hong Kong is unlikely to be significant. It has simply been a news story. Likewise, your use of the WP:DIVERSE tag doesn't support this article. This tag is defined with "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." All news stories regarding this event are the same. They detail what happened. There is no wide-ranging reporting. There are no "sides". There is no controversy. It is simply a news story that has been reported as news, so the multitude of sources should be discounted as diverse sources. Ksoth (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I pointed out that that specific statement is subjective. I have also given my opinion but have backed them up with arguments. I appreciate your time arguing against my points. Your rebuttal about how it doesn't follow WP:GEOSCOPE is again your opinion, worldwide coverage argues against you. As for your argument against WP:DIVERSE, "All news stories regarding this event are the same. They detail what happened.", that's what all news does, they report what happened. A notable event does not require controversy or 'sides', that is not part of the definition. This argument is therefore irrelevant and should not be used to discount those sources as not being diverse.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 20:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my rebuttal regarding WP:GEOSCOPE is not an opinion. That tag requires the event have "significant impact", not significant reporting. Just because it is a sensational international news story does not mean it has had a significant impact in those regions outside of Hong Kong. This event has not had a profound or significant impact on anyone outside of the people directly involved, so it is very limited in scope. It has not brought about debate about any policy matters, law matters, etc. It is just a sensational news story. Likewise, as mentioned, the WP:DIVERSE tag calls for "wide-ranging reporting", not in quantity of reports on it (sure, there are a lot in regards to this, but it has already started dropping off news feeds), but in the quality of the reports. All the reports of this incident are, for the most part, the same. They mirror each other. I went through the references given on the page, and most references can be attributed to many of the sources, not just the one that is immediately referenced. There is nothing important here. Ksoth (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This event is widely coverage in Hong Kong, Indonesia, UK and other countries. Ksoth said : "This incident has not, and likely will not, have a significant impact anywhere besides Hong Kong", but I think his/her statement is wrong. This event have significant impact in Indonesia. This event becoming headlines in some newspaper and news television in Indonesia. Also Indonesian police will sent to Hong Kong to investigate this murders. @NnAs (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just because an event has been reported a lot in the news in a certain area does not mean it has had a significant impact in that area. It just means it was a news story in that area. Nothing about Indonesia's society has, or likely will, be impacted because of this story. Ksoth (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Lean towards keep -- certainly not a "local new[s] story", since it involves at least the UK, Indonesia, and Hong Kong, is receiving coverage elsewhere, and has implications for larger issues (illegal workers in HK, etc.). -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep event has been covered in more places than Hong Kong and the UK so an international story.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Too soon to say. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The level of salacious interest in the case has generated more than enough international coverage to satisfy the General notability guideline. Philg88 ♦talk 09:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but even this guideline says "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Although this isn't a biographical article, per say, it somewhat is. It is in regards to a single event and gives biographical information on non-notable persons. Likewise, the guideline says "As such, brief bursts of news coverage may not be sufficient signs of notability, while sustained coverage would be, as described by notability of events." This event has already dropped off the news. It is not an important event. Ksoth (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you've given up on arguing the notability of the event, and now shifts attention to the notability of the person. Yes, the person is not notable, that's why this article is not about any particular person. "Although this isn't a biographical article, per say, it somewhat is." - It is not. "This event has already dropped off the news." - No it has not, the trial has not begun yet, once the trial resumes, there may (or may not, in your opinion) be more reports. I think it has gained enough international coverage already for it to be 'given' notability. At the very least. and for future reference, if you think an event is border-line notable, and it has gained international coverage, wait for the entire story to play out and then decide whether it breaks a guideline, before nominating it. WP:RAPID. There are some articles which are obvious at the onset to be notable, or else every current event should be taken down? As someone that argues against the 2014_Virgin_Galactic_crash article (Talk:2014_Virgin_Galactic_crash), I think you need to have a good read about what WP:NOTNEWS really means.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 04:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't give up on the notability of the event. My last response was just in relation with the last notability guideline comments. Look, a lot of "events" get a lot of news coverage. Lindsey Lohan getting arrested gets a lot of news coverage for days on end. That doesn't mean every arrest is a notable event that deserves an encyclopedia entry. Sure, it could be mentioned in the article about Lindsey Lohan, but not its own article. And for the most part, yes, this has dropped off news cycles. It may, or may not, come back up when the trial starts, but something that hasn't happened yet surely can't be used for basis of notability. Think about the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. It doesn't have its own article, although by and large that was a notable event (moreso because of the notability of Oscar Pistorius), but the event is combined with another article, the trial (also a notable event). With this case, there is no notability beyond the news coverage. Ksoth (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well. We have, for the n-th time, established the point that just because an event gets news coverage, it doesn't mean it's notable. But it doesn't mean it is not notable neither. Coverage, combined with some of the points other users have stated here, makes this article notable. "something that hasn't happened yet" - that's your opinion, the consensus here is that something notable has already happened. Why is the death of Reeva Steenkamp not its own article? Because the trial is more notable and the death of Steenkamp can be merged into it. Why is the Murder of Sharon Beshenivsky named so? Because the suspects were not more notable than the deceased. Why was 2012 Delhi gang rape named so? Because the rape that occurred sparked something, and the rape itself is more significant than who was raped. The point is, just because the murder of Reeva Steenkamp doesn't have an article named "Murder of Reeva Steenkamp", doesn't make the event insignificant. And just because it is ordinary in your eyes, doesn't mean an article should not exists for it. You can argue that rape happens all the time in India, why is this one so different? Well - it just so happens it is. We can sit here all day discussing whether it should be notable or not, or look at reality and accept the fact that it is.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 17:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The case has now sparked a police crack down on sex workers in Wan Chai, which puts it into a much wider context and negates the already shaky "one-event" argument for a non-biographical article. I've updated the article accordingly. Philg88 ♦talk 06:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Let we compare with this Afd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disappearance_of_Hannah_Graham. This article event and the source only about USA, and the result is Keep. So I think with the more international coverage on the Murders of Sumarti Ningsih and Jesse Lorena article, the article should be Keep. @NnAs (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As this article today notes, it is the second murder in which Bank of America Merrill Lynch has been involved in Hong Kong in the last decade. The first has its article, Murder of Robert Kissel; and the coverage explains clearly why it's not just a local murder. In short, the accused is reportedly a UK native (and professional gambler, sorry 'competitive poker player' per my citation here; not yet in Wiki article) working for a US-based global company. As in the earlier murder, issues of expatriatism and much else are brought up in such a case. I for one was glad to find the accused quickly and by name in Wikipedia. If he's cleared I'd say the case would still be of sustained interest; not just a one-week salacious "news" story. Swliv (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an international news story with significant international coverage so justifies a Wikipedia entry.Dingowasher (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Time to call it? It seems a predominant consensus. Swliv (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a consensus keepDingowasher (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2014 (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.