Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case
Suggest deletion per WP:NOT this is little more than tabloid rubbish and is not fit for an encyclopedia. The "article" is also problematic under WP:BLP as much of the facts surrounding this case are not fully known. This warrants little more than a footnote under the main Simpson article. Burntsauce 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Enough complaints about the tabloid nature of the case.  Irrelevant.  This is front-of-mind for millions of Americans and a seminal moment of pop culture colliding with our justice system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.138.227.25 (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, because of constant media coverage and easy availability of sources. This case seems to be quite major. Eventually a merger with O.J. Simpson, may be possible, but it's just too early to delete or merge at this point. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now - the AFD is premature. A footnote, are you serious?  OJ is mainly known these days because of that other incident.  This one may likely contribute to his ongoing infamy. While Wikipedia is not a newpaper, this is a significant incident and I don't see us not having an article about it. Friday (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is puerile tabloid material Friday, and everything printed right now is "allegedly" anyhow. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, let alone a newspaper.  Once the facts of the matter have settled we can place that material in the O. J. Simpson article.  We don't need this, though. Burntsauce 21:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Problems that can be solved by editing should not be solved by deletion. Friday (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Except when they are WP:BLP problems that are potentially defaming someone, I completely agree with you. Burntsauce 22:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If there's really a blp issue here, the solution is to fix it immediately. This AFD shouldn't have anything to do with blp- that just doesn't make sense. Friday (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not Wikinews. If the incident becomes very prominent it may warrent inclusion in the Oj simpson article. If not simply delete. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Its nice to see you throw AFD around so easily and the onus is on everyone else to say keep it. Anyways, as I said if nothing comes of this case by Wednesday September 19th, I will delete it.--Anais1983 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Where did this deadline come from?  I could see an eventual merge if this doesn't turn out to be of lasting significance, but why would we pick such a soon date for this?  Friday (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Frday, I said Wednesday because he will see the judge Wednesday. Charges will either stick and a trial will be set or this may die down Wednesday --Anais1983 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Whats the big deal? People made a quick article for Michael Vick right? This story will not go away and we should keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.78.130 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikinews - it's not significant enough to be a Wikipedia entry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Currently a notable chapter in his ongoing legal troubles with verifiable facts. Makes sense to keep as a separate article for clarity.  If it all blows over if can be cut down or merged later.  &mdash;dgies tc 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, transwiki & redirect, chapter in his life sure, but it doesn't need a separate article. KTC 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki/delete WP:NOT investigative journalism, thats what Wikinews is for. Minor mention in the OJ Simpson biography is sufficient, a link to wikinews can be placed there. That is sufficient per our policies.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing sufficient under our policies is comprehensive coverage of notable events, and it is impossible to provide that without a separate article. Everyking 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Alkivar. Encyclopedias provide summaries of people's lives, not select incidents in the lives of contemporary celebrities. It should be part of a general article on OJ Simpson, but the fact that it is occurring now does not mean that it merits separate mention. -- Danny 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia provides comprehensive information about notable events. It does not warrant coverage depending on when it takes place; it warrants coverage based on its notability as confirmed by the sources. Everyking 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge + Redirect + Wikinews A lot of the stars incidents doesn't deserve individual articles - and most of those doesn't have one since they aren't notable enough even though it a extensive news coverage (i.e Paris Hilton's drunk driving case or not even Phil Spector's murder trail case). A robbery is a robbery nomatter who did that. Like how mainly robberies are happening every day. No it should in Wikinews and merge to O.J. Simpson's article in a section about the incident.JForget 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the classic "another article about a similar topic does not exist, so neither should this one" argument. The two cases you mention should have articles, but the fact that no one has written them yet does not reflect on the notability of this topic. A thing has or lacks notability based on the attention it receives from people and the importance they attach to it. If some non-celebrity robs a convenience store and the media decides to make that front page national news, then it should have an article; if a celebrity robs somebody and the world doesn't care and nobody reports it, then it does not warrant such treatment. Whether it's a robbery or whatever is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument. Everyking 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete : Wikipedia is not a newspaper (again). Should be part of the general article on OJ Simpson as stated above. Later on, a stand alone article could be created depending on the long term notability of this event. Tomj 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: There's probably little question that some amount of content about this incident belongs in Wikipedia, right? There'll be something in here about this this week, there'll probably still be something here in a couple years.  The details remain to be seen, of course- which content, how much, what article does it belong in- that sort of thing.  I submit that AFD is a poor venue for such discussions, and this stuff should be worked out on the talk page instead.  This is why I commented above that the AFD is premature, in my view.  Friday (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and I think to say otherwise is a little naive about the world. The content, as Friday says, is subject to discussion. DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a news item of trivial social importance. Only the "celebrity" element lifts it out of a one-paragraph article in the local paper. MarkBul 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been a lot of news coverage on this (and I'm sure there will be more in the future). The media seems to be in love with OJ. --RucasHost 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't news though Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia isn't a news site.  This story should absolutely be featured on his own wikipedia page, but notability has not yet been established enough to warrant its own article.  Its possible this article will be necessary at some point, but not yet.Slapshot01j 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree Michael Vick got an article why not OJ. The third person just got arrested now. This will just get bigger.--70.71.13.87 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is certainly notable for the OJ Simpson page but would be too lengthy to put there, so it's correct to have split it into another page.  CoolGuy 02:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with CoolGuy above, plus there are certainly enough media sources to establish verifiability. Steve CarlsonTalk 03:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable event in a notable person's life, not to include it would be highly POV, it doesn't belong in the main article, it will disrupt the article with the constant flow of new information. Let's keep this here, and merge it later if appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedant (talk • contribs) 05:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Regarding the Michael Vick references, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and avoid using that argument. I agree with Anais in that we won't know until Simpson faces a judge if this story will continue and I'll withhold on voting until then. MrBlondNYC 09:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly notable. Everyking 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. Delete later. The fact is, as long as this is fresh, people will come here looking for this page. I have little doubt that a few months from now, this page can be easily merged into O.J. Simpson and deleted with little opposition, there's no harm in waiting until then. Cogswobble talk 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. If it's notable now, it's always notable and should always have an article. If it's not notable, then it should be deleted now. Everyking 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason it can't work that way. The longterm significance of this incident has yet to be seen- yet, for keeping the main article stable, it may be useful to split this out for now.  Friday (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Friday. This may not be how it should work, but the fact is that for now, it's somewhat impractical to delete the page. People will be looking specifically for this page, and the fact is that on its own, it stands up to WP:N. In a few months, after the furore has died down, it will be easier to objectively judge whether or not this page should be deleted or simply merged into his main page. Cogswobble talk 16:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability never degrades over time, however... • Lawrence Cohen  13:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into OJ's ever expanding page, but consider creating a category for OJ's criminal activity in the future if he keeps up this pace :-) Irishjp 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly notable as an event, and can anyone honestly assume that coverage, reporting, and information on this event will reduce any time soon? Also, once notable, notability does not degrade over time. So, keep. • Lawrence Cohen  15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is a (or even THE) go-to source for information; AfD this just seems to me to be a waste of time.  Merging it would make the OJ article even more unwieldy, so it might as well be split.  --mordicai. 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I probably would've gone for delete originally, but keep now that he's been officially charged. Seems pretty likely to be a huge news story of the year, and coverage of it will easily meet WP:N in the future, if not already. Although I must admit the article needs a bit of a re-write in some areas... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not comparable to Michael Vick's Bad Newz controversy. Look at the two articles - the controversy page is massive! And this? It's a new controversy that we don't even know will be that much bigger than it is right now, and it's not even half the size of Michael Vick's article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability of an event or person is not decided on whether other pages exist or not. The fact it's small is not a reason to delete, either, it suggests expansion -- and the page you're saying it's small in comparison to is tagged for being too long(!). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 00:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since most of the argument for keeping is exactly that, why are you telling me? - A Link to the Past (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your argument then... It sounds as if you're saying that because it's not as big as the Michael Vick article, so it doesn't deserve one of its own? I dunno, seems I've misinterpreted. My apologies. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Simpson article, wikipedia isn't news Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, high notability overrides the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source, just like the hundreds of other ex-current-event articles here. Notability arises not just from celebrity fame, but the possibility of O.J. being jailed for life on these charges as a "fix" to his infamous acquittal.  Merge if there is no court case or charges are dropped, otherwise treat it like any other article about notable court cases.  Sabar Cont 03:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an issue people will come here to learn about, and it will be in the media for a LOOOOONG time. --JaGa 07:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly at this point with state kidnapping charges and a potential life term this is not something that is going to blow over (as I might have thought even 48 hours ago). There may not be a trial, but if there is one, it's guaranteed to have global coverage (though live is unlikely this round). It is very rare when a celebrity of this fame or infamy is charged with such a serious crime. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - It would be premature to delete this article at the moment. Give it some time to play out.  It could easily turn into a major event, akin to the earlier murder trial.  Like it not, the public is fascinated with this kind of stuff.VincentValentine29 20:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. "This warrants little more than a footnote under the main Simpson article" - Huh, I think not. - hydnjo talk 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of just saying no, please state your reason. Chris! my talk 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and Merge: Per WP:NOT Chris! my talk 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge with Simpson's own article. This hardly warrants it's own article. Do these "Celebrity does something stupid" articles ever hold up? I usually see them merged onto the appropriate articles (i.e Michael Richards' Laugh Factory incident is mentioned on his article, the laugh Factory's, and a certain South Park episode's). This case is only notable because it involves O.J. Therefore, the appropriate article for this is O.J.'s. In fact, having just checked, a good chunk of this is already on O.J.'s article. This article is superfluous. EDIT- From WP:NOT- The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. Also- Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.Onikage725 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Tabloid rubbish is stuff that is only covered by papers like the National Enquirer, Star, etc. This story is getting major air time from CNN, MSNBC and others.  These are America's major news outlets.  They are not tabloid rubbish.  Also, much of the facts surrounding many things are not fully known.  Take, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Big Bang.  Many of the facts surrounding these are not known, yet they are important Wikipedia articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That doesn't address the fact that this is covered on OJ's article already. What is the sense in having this article when the info is already covered? Onikage725 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of the fact that this article may well be the size of OJ's main article soon, and we should then make this seperate? The same the murders article for OJ is seperate? • Lawrence Cohen  13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the same as the murder case. Onikage725 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not yet, anyway, but we can't say what will happen. He's facing life in prison in this case; that is notable. Also, good thing I never called them the "OJ murders"! ;) I referred to murders, yes, because two people were murdered... •  Lawrence Cohen  13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I misread you. I removed that part of my response. All the same, the fact that OJ "might" go to jail for life (and I might as well cite the whole "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" thing, cuz if I don't someone else will) does not make this case notable beyond OJ himself. Hence why O. J. Simpson is entirely appropriate. That section could be expanded a bit, but the only key difference between that and the article is the "Timeline" and "People involved lists. And last I checked, lists were discouraged on Wikipedia. I don't dispute that this info should be represented, but noone has said how this article satisifes the requirements for the article beyond the section already on OJ's page. The vast majority of people with articles who go to jail have this written on their page, not a whole new article on the crime itself. Only especially notable cases do, and I fail to see how OJ holding some guys up for sports memorabilia ranks with something like, say, the Zodiac killings or OJ's own trial for murder. Onikage725 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note the lack of an article on OJ's civil trial. That case was heavily talked about, though not to the degree of the murder case. The verdict was against him. Fred Goldman still pursues damages related to that ruling (even involing this case we're discussing now). Yet this is not considered notable enough for its own article. It is outlined in OJ's article. Onikage725 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep for now per Everyking, Friday and Dhartung. MrBlondNYC 06:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeeep per all the keeps above!-- F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 09:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if the O.J. Simpson murder case was a notable event, how is this one any less? Though it's known that WP:NOT, "if the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sessh, you really think that OJ shaking down some guys for sports memorabilia compares to the double-homicide case? If everything that the news media sensationalized got its own article, then we would have to write articles devoted to Paris Hilton's legal problems and Britney Spears' failed marriage to K-Fed, erratic behavior, and custody issues. These all receive much media coverage, yet they are represented within the articles on the persons involved. Without looking, what's the name of the people OJ held up? Most people neither know nor care, and plenty of newscasts I've seen haven't even mentioned. The only reason this is getting coverage beyond a spot on the 11 o'clock news is because OJ is involved and the media loves a celebrity scandal. Onikage725 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's 'news' right now in the sense that new details of the case are coming in, but the case itself is notable. It could be merged into O.J. Simpson later, but there should be a separate article right now for clarity. Revolutionaryluddite 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is an article on his murder trial, there is one on his book, so why delete this one? Let's keep it. --Zealander 05:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep While it is tabloid-y, it's news and people, like me, come to wikipedia to get a good understanding of the situation. This has value, if only to devalue all the hype. --Effoveks 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Constantly developing. Could be merged later. To call it tabloid is irrelevant. I bet I can pick out a dozen "tabloid" WP articles. DragonFire1024 00:20, 22 September 2007 (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.