Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Markoff


 * 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. One (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Okay, recreated again after it was deleted (speedy), WP:ONEVENT failure. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  16:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Are you running out of disk space. If not then why delete? I was looking specifically for this name and glad that I found a page dedicated to the name instead of some general Craiglist Killers page.  Stop wasting your and other people time by attempting to delete other people's work.  It's better to have more than less.  Disk space is cheap.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyenaiviet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Craigslist Killer or Craigslist Killer. Cycle~ (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Redirect it. otisjimmy1 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect Likely search term, but best covered in the Craigslist Killer article.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey I redirected it, sorry I should have followed procedure, but it seemed obvious.M4bwav (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * KeepI have greatly expanded this page with references. I am planning to continue to expand it. This is a very active current event in boston right now. Please do not delete 24.91.117.213 (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Another example of folly in deleting something that will clearly be notable. By now enough stories have appeared that it is not ONE EVNENT--there is more than one crime, and there is already international coverage. There will probably be a good many more accounts by the end of the week. The pattern of deleting very notable things on the basis that they arent yet widely notable the fist few hours after the report  shows a considerable lack of judgment in applying NOT NEWS.  DGG (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment It wasn't notable when it was nominated, why was it an error of judgment on my part? Anyway, ONEVENT says comment on the event, not the person. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect. As it currently exists, this is an article about the killings, not a biography about Philip Markoff.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG - much news coverage, including lead stories on major national television news programs and in newspapers about the individual as distinct from the crime. Article is in process of being expanded, and it's obvious that more and more reliable sources are becoming available. It's a stub - give it a chance. The facts of the murder are handled in Craigslist Killer, but biographical information about this out-of-the-mold accused killer belong in a biography of him. Tvoz / talk 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not convinced that Craigslist Killer is an actual topic. This article is really a disambiguation page pointing to three separate topics.  If it were a topic, it would be accurately called the Craigslist killings, but there are no good sources that actually talk about this.  Recommend splitting the other two killers out into their own articles and using the "Craigslist killer" page for disambiguation only.  I suspect that Markoff might get a primary topic designation, so the dablink could conceivably appear at the top of his page.  I don't know if this is true just yet, however. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect changed to Stong Keep (explanation provided): This page is weak. The material on the Craigslist Killer page is stronger. Some of this material might be saved, however, before a delete-and-redirect is undertaken. Also, i understand why Viriditas said above that s/he would like to make Craigslist Killer (which we both agree needs a lower-cas "k" in killer) into a disambiguation page. I happen to strongly disagree with this idea, though. Here's why:
 * The term "Craigslist Killer" is never given in the media as "Craigslist killings."
 * The current Philip Markoff page is poorly conceived, as noted by Who then was a gentleman, and it is also not well written, in my opinion; however, although it might stand alone if basically overwritten by the material currently on the Craigslist Killer page, what then would happen to the data and timelines dealing with the OTHER two media-named Craigslist killers -- Anderson and Katehis? The latter has already gotten a mention on the George Weber page, as Weber was his victim, but Anderson? This was not such a big case in and of itself -- but it is historically important because it marks the first appearance of the term "Craigslist Killer."
 * Updated Comment: I am disapponted and angered that the editor Viriditas turned the heavily referenced Craigslist killer page into a dab during the midst of a discussion without having the decency to find consensus -- and i have spent hours trying to make sense of his messy work, whereby he deleted all text formerly on the page by making redirects to an off-topic page. (The topic is true crime / murders; he redirected to a sub-head in the middle of a page about an online advertising service!). However, having spent the morning undoing his editorial travesty, i now vote to keep the Philip Markoff page. Wikipedia has many pages on famous murder cases, listed, generally, under the name of the accused / convicted person. Serial crimes, in particular, are notable, and there is such ample precedent for this kind of page titling at Wikipedia that i find it stange that anyone would seek to delete the material as non-notable.
 * Comment: To my way of thinking, it is the term "Craislist killer" that is the actual subject here -- and the notability is the way that the media keep applying the term to different cases. In short, i see this 180 degrees from the way Viriditas does. cat yronwode, not logged in all day, sorry! 64.142.90.33 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's very strange, since you just said on Talk:Craigslist Killer that you didn't have a problem with the disambiguation page. In any case, there is no one Craigslist killer, and the three are not connected, so an article about the three isn't exactly accurate.  Unless there are good sources about the Craigslist killings, this is a disambiguation page, nothing more. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: What i actually wrote was this:
 * "I am not oposed in theory to making 'Craigslist killer' a dab page, but i would agree to this only if the Anderson and Katehis pages are created and only if one month after their creation they are not afd-ed out of existence -- which is, i am convinced, EXACTLY what will happen if they are left to stand alone."
 * "Think about it my way, too, though: In my opinion, 'Craigslist killer' is not a dab -- it is a new term of art. This is one writer who will be pissed off as hell if an entire day's work of mine is trashed by deletionists just because *you* don't get it that 'Craigslist killer' is a newly-coined specific term with a specific meaning and as such it is currently much used in popular culture to refer to any and all murderers, with any and all kinds of motivation, who have in common the modus operandi that they find victims via Craigslist."
 * In short, the very fact that you are searching in vain for media uses of "Craiglist killings" convinces me that you have not yet understood that we are dealing with a new word coinage -- Craigslist killer, a term defined by internet modus operandi -- and that we are not merely handling a series of unrelated cases that need to be disambiguated. My thinking is running toward writing up a wiki page on "want ad killers" and removing the STUPID redirect that links the term "lonely hearts killer" to only ONE of the several lonely hearts killer cases. Furthermore, no one at wikipedia has yet addressed how H.H. Holmes, the 19th century boardinghouse killer, fits into this picture -- but he does, because he advertised his boardinghouse-abbatoir in the Chicago classifieds -- yet this sort of connection is well understood outside Wikipedia, by true crime writers.
 * cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what this boils down to (see Talk:Craigslist Killer) is that you are worried that Michael John Anderson and John Katehis will be deleted if Philip Markoff isn't redirected to Craigslist Killer. Can you tell me what is stopping you from creating those pages?  Is it because you don't think they are notable to have their own pages?  If that is the case, do you think that redirecting a more notable killer (Philip Markoff) to a list of non-notable killers will somehow be acceptable and escape notice?  Have you thought this all the way through?  You are grouping these killers together.  This is called original research.  And the material you added in the lead section is pure original research:
 * "Before the development of the internet, when similar cases were described in the media, they were commonly known as 'Want Ad Murders' and the perpetrators were called 'Want Ad Killers' or 'Lonely Hearts Club Killers', due to their method of finding victims through newspaper classified ads and personal or lonely hearts club ads."
 * The source for that statement is a 1983 book by Ann Rule about serial killer Harvey Carignan. It has nothing to do with this article and violates WP:NOR. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect Media circus event. Шизомби (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The only acceptable redirect is Craigslist.  Craigslist Killer was created to circumvent two prior deletions, one of Articles for deletion/Craigslist Killing in November 2007, and approximately a year later in November of 2008, Michael John Anderson. Viriditas (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I was not aware of the prior deletions. You have evidence that Adams kevin, who created the article, did so to circumvent those prior deletions? Шизомби (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly a notable person, and more evidence that WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT need to be rewritten. --Pixelface (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I notice both pages have changed a bit since I !voted redirect above. If we do decide to keep a standalone page I think we should consider a rename.  Something like "2009 Boston Craigslist Killing" with the name a redirect.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - I agree with cube lurker. I'd rather see this blp renamed/redirected to the event/s.  His notability will be due to this series of crimes, not personal achievement out side of them.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - killer becoming notable, ties into Craigslist controversies and other serial killers/murderers. '' conman33 (. . .talk)  20:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable.--68.173.101.114 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable. Jokestress (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't know how the discussion has gotten so sidetracked. He is definitely notable.  Murder happens every day and the event is not notable.  However, clearly this guy is the subject of a lot of interest because how often does someone skip two grades in high school, graduate with honors from albany and enters BU in excellent standing with no criminal record and then just a few months before getting engaged to a wonderful fiancee that he met while doing volunteering at a hospital he throws it all away without any motive.  Subject is notable for the same reason Cho Seung-Hui was noteable.  He is the independent subject of many highly respected, publicized sources.  To summarize the keep arguments as saying he is not notable and only his acts were notable are clearly strawman, and is not in fact backed by those wikipedia core policies that are cited for reasons to delete. JameKelly (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, but ok to merge - 1. What to do with this article has been clearly decided in the past, which is delete.  Amanda Knox is an accused murderer who has received over a year's worth of media attention but her article was deleted recently.  This decision was reached because Knox is known for only 1 event, the murder.  She received an internet award for best lady, but this person has not received such recognition.  2nd reason - this person is known for one event only, the murder, and one event people don't qualify for articles.  3rd reason - Wikipedia rules are such that articles are to be called "Murder of Julia Brussman".  I understand people's desire to break the rules.  If you want Markoff to have an article then my proposal should pass first then you'll have a reason.  I wrote this before I knew about Markoff but he's a classic reason for it.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Proposed_change  If this proposed change happens, you will have your Markoff article and I'll vote keep.  Until this is passed, I vote delete or merge because those are the rules. The rules state:

The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.

If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category


 * Markoff did not kill a political leader. User F203 (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it interesting that there are editors who seem to want to change wikipedia policy in order to keep this article when it seems the current interpretation would delete it, instead of arguing on interpretation, what's the policy on situations such as this? &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment re: F203:: The one-event policy says Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual which is NOT the case here, yet you cite this policy to support your opinion. This individual is clearly notable if you weigh in this quote from WP:BIO The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.  I feel we have a miscommunication because it's not a cookie cutter issue.  According to your interpretation of Wikipedia policy, Scott Peterson, Cho Seung-Hui, Natalee Holloway and Timothy McVeigh would not have articles because they are not notable per WP:1event.  I feel a duty to remind everyone that as an encyclopedia, we must exercise good judgment and not apply strict reliance on cookie cutter guidelines.  Murder happens every day.  What doesn't happen every day is when someone essentially has a great future, a great fiancee, and no criminal background just snaps like he did.  He knew how bad it would hurt his family, his fiancee's family, his school and his own livelihood by taking such risks and if the evidence proves he did in fact live such a disturbing double-life, then I fail to understand how you can see this as anything other than an extreme act of deviancy which is why there is so much coverage about him and you know that he's going to enter an insanity defense and his trial and/or legal proceedings are sure to support the argument about his notability and to redirect this prematurely would be a mistake (which DCG finely argued above).  JameKelly (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Saying that something/one "will be" notable or that future events will support a notability argument potentially falls afoul of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Шизомби (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * merge and redirect per one event.  untwirl (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Craigslist. Textbook WP:1E.  Grsz 11  02:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to complicate things, we now have the newly-created Craigslist Killer (Boston). Шизомби (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, per WP:BLP, I've separated in-depth coverage of the allegations from that of the suspect and moved each to its own WP article. Note that editors are instructed not to wait for the end results of review panels discussions before acting to address the concerns fleshed out in this guideline.  ↜Just me, here, now … 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you should be more specific about how you see creating that article as being appropriate per BLP. On the contrary, I think Craigslist Killer (Boston) should be bundled in this AfD. Шизомби (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP concern is Journalism 101: convicted vs. accused.
 * Although it's not the usual Wikipedia practice, I myself would support formal or de facto bundling of the AfDs for these two articles, in point of fact.  ↜Just me, here, now … 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Craigslist killer (Boston), but definitely do not make an article about the subject himself, someone notable only for having murdered a woman. --Angelo (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Angelo, I really wish you and others would think these things through first. We do not know if Philip Markoff is the "Craigslist Killer" yet.  We can probably all agree that it seems highly likely, but you are putting the cart before the horse.  Moving his article to that biased name before a published confession or the end of the trial would be the greatest example of bias possible.  We don't do that here. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two possibilities. The first is that he is, meaning that he received coverage only for being the Craiglist killer. The second is that he is not, meaning that he received coverage only as a Craiglist killer suspect. I can't see your point, sorry. --Angelo (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He received coverage as a suspect in a case. The circumstances of the case are notable enough to warrant his own biographical article.  Calling him the "Craigslist killer" in the article title is biased, regardless of how the media convicts him in the press.  We don't do that here.  I think someone could make an argument (and they have above) for something like the 2009 Boston Craigslist murder and attacks article, as that is fairly neutral. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He received coverage only as a suspect in a case, which is violation of WP:BLP1E. If you have concerns about title bias in "Craigslist killer", just propose changing the name to something like "Craiglist killer case" and I would agree with it. --Angelo (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you actually read WP:BLP1E, particularly the third paragraph. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read it, and I think that a man who attempts to kill the US president, or a prominent politician, could fit with it, but not an alleged murderer of a woman met through a website. Notability, in this case, is much lower and is more focused to the somewhat unusual circumstances than to the involved subjects. --Angelo (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me refresh your memory:
 * "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."
 * Is that enough, or do you require more evidence to change your position? The story is being covered by the international press and is likely to become more widespread as it continues to play out. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I have carefully read that paragraph and I still think it doesn't fit at all with this case. It talks, notably, about persistence of coverage; and, since I am not a native English speaker, I had had a look at Dictionary.com, and it says literally something can be defined as persistent when "Existing or remaining in the same state for an indefinitely long time". Where is the indefinite long time behind this case? How can you ensure me we'll still talk about this case in a year, or even a couple of months? You can be kinda sure about this when it comes about someone attempting to kill a US president, but not about such a not-so-exceptional event involving a simple woman with no particular fame. So, there is no persistence, therefore there is not enough significance, and so here is why I still think the subject himself is not worthy of a standalone encyclopedia article. --Angelo (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Craigslist killer (Boston). This kid is notable only for his possible connection to the crimes. The crimes have a page, and that should suffice. Uucp (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to a page dealing with the murder (whichever version of that ultimately gets settled upon). There is nothing at all noteworthy about him beyond his involvement with those incidents and the investigation of them.  He isn't convicted of any crimes, so all that can be said about him that is at all relevant is that he may or may not be a murderer.  And I know this will sound crass, but he's not even a serial killer.  He's not even the only or even the first to be called the "Craigslist Killer".  There's really nothing notable about him beyond one event. -Sketchmoose (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment NPF is an interesting policy I wasn't aware of. Whether he is or isn't guilty, it would seem under this policy it's not appropriate to state where he's from, went to school, etc.  Is that right? Шизомби (talk) 04:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I read this over half a dozen times, and also read the related articles. I'm completely failing to see why this alleged murderer is any more notable than those arrested in the other 17,000 or so murders that happen each year in the United States. The vast majority of this article is speculation and attempts to connect the dots. It might be noteworthy if this happened in Finland, but not the US. Now, an article on media bandwagon-jumping might be of some value... Risker (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The other 17,000 murders haven't received as much widespread mass attention as this. Bill Clinton's blowjob wasn't any more meritorious than the other 17,000 blowjobs administered each day, either. It's notability is proven objectively in its thousands of pages of search results.  Not to mention the fact he's now on the cover of People Magazine.Protophobic (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Merge to the article on the murder. Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep, prefer merge The murder case and Markoff's arrest has received national attention and a small amount of international attention. When it gets that much attention it is difficult to make an BLP1E argument. Moreover, if the basic idea behind BLP is first to Do-No-Harm then we wouldn't be doing any harm given the already prominent coverage. Indeed, if anything, a neutral article on the subject would actually be beneficial given how much sensationalist junk there is. Arguments that the coverage is due to "media bandwagon-jumping" are not a reason to delete. The entire point of standards such as WP:BIO and WP:N is that we don't make decisions about what is notable but rather rely on what external sources have done. This prevent serious NPOV problems in regard to coverage.  It will probably make more sense to merge anyways given standard precedents about people who are notable for criminal activity. (Disclaimer:I'm currently a grad student at Boston University.) JoshuaZ (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep massive media coverage = notability. BLP1E was created to deal with Wikipedia articles with information cherry picked from a small number of local/regional news stories about a basically obscure person. It was to prevent the fact that someone had been mentioned once or twice in minor stories, which would otherwise fade away in a few months, from being immortalized in a Wikipedia article that would always be the top result on Google. Deleting articles on people who are frontpage news on many papers... that's just not the spirit of BLP1E. Merging/redirecting, perhaps. But that doesn't strictly require AFD. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Every high profile murder isn't encyclopedic, and massive coverage only means news agencies want to sell a salacious story for more viewers or readers. Sadly, media manipulation seems to be lost on many Wikipedia editors. AniMate  talk  01:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it our job to filter what we think the media should cover? That sounds like it would be bias on our part. Your opinion on what stories newspapers should run is subjective, so is mine. I think celebrities should only be in the paper as it directly relates to their career - movie deals, awards, and so on. If I had my way there'd be no celebrity news because I don't consider that stuff important at all. Does that mean I get to take a hatchet to the Tom Cruise article to write it in my vision of what newspapers should have been reporting on about Cruise? Yeah right. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's clearly going to be/is already a very notable topic, since it is being covered so widely.  Definitely encyclopedia worthy.  Duchess of Bathwick  03:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of knowledge.  I came here specifically looking for an article on this, as have many others apparently.  Why delete knowledge that people seek?  Computer programming languages are not important to me, but I don't request they be deleted.  The censorship and deletionism has gotten so bad on Wikipedia in recent years that it's a surprise Bill O'Reilly isn't running this place. This is why so few people contribute to Wikipedia.  Protophobic (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's funny arguing on WP:ILIKEIT, WP is not a repository of random knowledge, and it's not censorship if the article runs afoul of policies. Furthermore, I'm surprised the deletionism is "bad" as you say it is, of all of my teacher's in my three school's I've went to, none have considered wikipedia reliable for writting essays, to say the least of general review. If you really are looking for strict control, there's always citizendium (I'm not a deletionist btw). &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  01:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsure but need to be retitle as Craigslist Killer. If He killed more than 5 women, it worth Keep like famous serial killers including Jack the Ripper. Cculber007 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Media coverage is sufficient for a well referenced article, following a discussion in the media of the person more than the event. Reading the sources, they seem to be about him--if why and how he carried out these attacks--not about the attacks themselves.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsure: In theory, he doesn't deserve a page of his own according to WP:BLP. In practice, if Seung-Hui Cho et al have pages, then the policy is already ruined and therefore useless. - Frankie (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2009 (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.