Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Xun Xue


 * 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 with the consideration of focus on the incident, rather than the person herself. - Mailer Diablo 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Qian Xun Xue

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deletion candidate in possible violation of the following deletion criteria: basic pillar of Wikipedia per WP:NOT, section 5 (indiscriminate collection of news reports); notability of temporary news subject per WP:N; and possible violation (though not certain on this point) of privacy for biography of living person per WP:BIO. My vote: delete. J Readings 11:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly a news article. She would not be noticed but for the actions of her father. Should not have an article per the commentry in WP:BLP - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Had this been a cause célèbre we would need an article. But an article about every child abandoned by his/her parents or legal guardians is way beyond the scope of Wikipedia. User:Dimadick  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Keep following a rename and a decent expansion. User:Dimadick —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Wikipedia is not wikinews. ff m  12:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so it should be about the incident, not the person, and Qian Xun Xue should just redirect there. Thing is I'm not sure what to call the whole story, so I started with the child because that is where the story started on Saturday. Can we leave it until a better name presents itself or a label is given to it by the media? Surely overall this is a notable incident, it is a murder inquiry spanning 3 countries involving some rather bizarre circumstances. Bramley 13:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not even rise to the level of the usual WP:NOT deletion, because of an apparent lack of coverage of the crime. Not every person mentioned in every news article needs to have an article about them permanently placed in an encyclopedia. Also should be deleted per WP:BLP1E, on the notion of "Do no harm." TV True Crime crime shows would change names to "protect the innocent." Give the child some peace rather than making her forever an entry in Wikipedia a top-10 internet site. Edison 13:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparent lack of coverage of the crime? This has been headline news across Australia and New Zealand ever since she was abandoned. (What is presumed to be) her mother's body has just been found in Auckland, and the father is missing somewhere in America. It's a truly bizarre situation, spanning four countries (if you count China, where the child's nearest relatives live) and raises significant questions about who should get custody in such a cross-jurisdictional scenario. I don't really think the child should have an article at the present stage, but the situation might develop to such a stage that she should. - Mark 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, she probably doesn't need a page of her own. I didn't intend for this page to be just about her anyway, it was to be about the whole story. As I said, I picked her name because that is where the story started. Are there any suggestions for a different page name? The media has no overall name for this story yet, but it has been headline news since Saturday. Bramley 16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably an article should be at the name of the mother, assuming that it is her body which was found in New Zealand. In the context of that murder inquiry, the child abandonment is just a side issue. - Mark 16:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Canley 15:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   —Canley 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a news website. Keb25 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - she is certainly associated with a major news story (mostly because there is actual video of her being abandoned) but as WP:NOT says, "in many cases this will mean not having a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite having made a brief appearance in the news. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." After the dust has settled is the time to evaluate any long-term notability sufficient to justify an article. Euryalus 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Very good points, Mark. I agree that the main issue is now the death of her mother (the actual incident, and this sounds awful but does not have the undoubtable BLP concerns as an article about a very young child). However, while this incident is clearly noteworthy in one sense, it may be prudent to wait until the dust has settled and there are more details available - when the father is found, and the circumstances of the death? --Canley 21:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no other indications of notability beside the most recent event.--JForget 23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This story has been a front page issue in Australia and New Zealand for the best page of a week. She is as notable as Madeleine McCann. We should have something about her even if it is under her father. This appears to be a clear case of I haven't heard of it therefore it isn't notable. Google News shows over 1,000 news stories.Capitalistroadster 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Capitalistroadster 03:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Capitalistroadster -- yes might be only one event but major major front page news story in Australia (and presumably NZ). Possibly a redirect would be appropriate - the child herself is not notable other than the news story.  However, there are plenty of precedents for articles on people who are notable for only one event:  Madeline McCann, that runaway bride woman in the US, Peter Falconio who was murdered, ....  At the moment the child herself is somewhat of a celebrity too - don't know whether that will last but in a year's time deletion or redirection can be reconsidered - not now. --Golden Wattle  talk 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a highly notable news story in Australia, however, I really don't like the idea of having an article for the child. As the story develops, we will probably have to think about writing one about her father, but I think there are BLP concerns with regard to articles about minors who are victims of crime but otherwise not notable. Delete, with the possibility of a later article about the father or about the crimes, as is the case with Madeline McCann which is actually at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. I don't think renaming is enough; it needs to be rewritten to focus on the crimes and (likely) the father, rather than the little girl. Sarah 04:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename. The girl is not important, but the case is. What we need is just to rename the article to the case, not the person. --Neo-Jay 04:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a hugely significant story in Australia and New Zealand. Hard to believe the number of overseas editors who have chimed in with "Delete - I've never heard of it" or similar in the first hours of this Afd. Currently the name of the case is in a state of flux, but it is primarily associated with the name of the little girl, originally nicknamed 'Pumpkin' by police before her real name, Qian Xun Xue was ascertained. I say we keep this at its current name for the time being, and rename later if a new name emerges in the media which specifically describes the case rather than the girl. Easel3 04:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - please stop this Afd. I have now rewritten the article to reflect the case rather than to serve as a biography of any person involved, which it was never going to be, nor should it have been. I have moved the article to Qian Xun Xue case, as an interim measure until a better name for the case is found. The more common but less official-sounding name Pumpkin case now redirects here. It's unfortunate that the article was torpedoed in the first couple of hours of this Afd but I urge other editors to see past that and Keep the article for this important event. Easel3 06:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This is a hugely significant story in Australia and New Zealand. Hard to believe the number of overseas editors who have chimed in with "Delete - I've never heard of it" or similar in the first hours of this Afd. Currently the name of the case is in a state of flux, but it is primarily associated with the name of the little girl, originally nicknamed 'Pumpkin' by police before her real name, Qian Xun Xue was ascertained. I say we keep this at its current name for the time being, and rename later if a new name emerges in the media which specifically describes the case rather than the girl. Easel3 04:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - please stop this Afd. I have now rewritten the article to reflect the case rather than to serve as a biography of any person involved, which it was never going to be, nor should it have been. I have moved the article to Qian Xun Xue case, as an interim measure until a better name for the case is found. The more common but less official-sounding name Pumpkin case now redirects here. It's unfortunate that the article was torpedoed in the first couple of hours of this Afd but I urge other editors to see past that and Keep the article for this important event. Easel3 06:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done Easel3. By the way, questions are being asked in the New Zealand parliament how the father was able to gain a passport and leave the country in defiance of a court order. Capitalistroadster 06:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jealous - I never had an article for me when I was a three-year-old pumpkin. :( — xDanielx T/C 08:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * On a more serious note, I think Easel3 did the right thing. This isn't a local news story that will be forgotten in a day. I think we should keep the Qian Xun Xue case article and leave the redirects intact. — xDanielx T/C 08:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, since the article is now titled "Qian Xun Xue case", and is demonstrably about the whole situation, which is notable due to press coverage. Whether or not that's the best title is open to debate (since my guess is people will call it the "Pumpkin Case" to avoid the names of the people involved). The girl herself is only borderline notable, but the whole messy situation surrounding her family looks to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is still just a news article about a cute little abandoned girl and should be deleted. The girl is not notable...only newsworthy. I would possibly change my opinion if the article was Nai Xin Xue and was about him, his life, the possible murder and then the abandonment of his daughter... basically a completely different article.- Peripitus (Talk) 10:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article's about slightly more than that - although I'll be the first to admit it's in pretty poor condition at present, which is probably due to the fact that the first anyone knew about this case was the girl being abandoned at the train station. That the article needs attention to add in more information about the father and his background isn't a reason to delete it, though. It's a reason to hunt up said information and stick it in. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename Although it's already been renamed, I think it would be better if it was renamed to focus on the father rather than this girl. Definitely notable enough for an article given the coverage in Australia alone. pfctdayelise (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename and expand. The article should be renamed something like "Xue family murder and abandonment" so that it reflects all of the various elements: the murder of Ms Liu, the abandonment of Qian Xun ("Pumpkin"), Mr Xue's escape to USA, related family matters and even the bungled operation by the NZ cops. WWGB 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Not a case that will be forgotten in a hurry. The case has now escalated into a murder investigation of the mother and a slightly international 'manhunt' for the father with the use of Interpol in USA. Eventually the article will have to be expanded over the next few days and/or weeks with new information that could come through at any time. - Vicer 11:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename, as all the elements of the case can be included. Recurring dreams 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - more notable than the horse flu epidemic which I thought was not deserving of an article - and has international coverage too. JRG 11:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - An important kidnap/murder case in Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Tmpnz 13:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure that "kidnap" is the right word for your own child, but agree with importance. WWGB 13:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, and preferably rename to focus on An An Xue (the mother). Important enough given all the elements listed above by WWGB and others. -- Avenue 14:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Most certainly notable enough --Oskar 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with the above, the case is notable in it's own right beyond merely being a news item.Number36 00:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: why are we overlooking one of Wikipedia's most basic policies: recent news items are not encyclopedic and notable in and of themselves? That's why the policy exists; it help to prevent Wikipedia from being inundated with short-term news items. If this case dragged on for years in the media, produced a lot of commentary from multiple disinterested third-parties, and provoked something notable within the legal system of these countries, for example, I can definitely see adding it to this encyclopedia. Right now, it's just a recent news item and all the crystal balling about what the future has in store for this news item is just speculation. My vote remains in keeping with Wikipedia's most basic policy: delete. J Readings 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implying that this case is non-notable just because it's recent. Sometimes events occur whose notability is quickly apparent; there is not always a need to wait for a case to 'drag on for years' before it can be given a Wikipedia page. This case has easily received enough media saturation in the last week to warrant inclusion, and there are references on the page which confirm this. No crystal ball is necessary here. Easel3 03:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, most certainly notable, as it involves multinational co-operation, raised important issues relating to domestic violence and dysfunctional families, led to criticism of NZ police for handling of the body-in-the-boot case, and is likely to remain a unique and highly analysed case. This is certainly not something that will become a trivial factoid once it leaves the news cycle. Brisv e  gas  09:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Emphasis on the word "likely to remain," which is all part of crystal balling (a Wikipedia no-no). As for the other "keep arguments", unless they were brought out by third-party sources, that strikes me as original research in defense of keeping this article (another Wikipedia no-no). I don't know folks. The arguments in favor seem forced to me. J Readings 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In terms of the other arguments, the media here in Australia has certainly been vocal in criticising the Kiwi police over the car-searching business. If there aren't sources for that, I'll see what can be scared up. Similar things can be said about the multi-national flavour to the whole thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt that majority of the keep votes were forced. Mine certainly wasn't. As for the "original research in keeping article" comment, from what I see in this arguement it has all been mentioned in the news and has most likely been sourced in the article itself. For example, my arguement was not original research, I clearly sourced it on the page. Ever since you nominated it for deletion, the page has expanded from just three sentences + links to separate paragraphs with sourced information, so you may want to look at what's changed since then. But if you decide not to, that's fine. You are still entitled to your opinion. - Vicer 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. It's notable. --Ninevah 11:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the WP:COATRACK issues have been appropriately dealt with.  Bur nt sau ce  17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have never heard anything more ridiculous. If you delete this, you have to delete the Madeline McCann article too. Try doing that, and you'll have the whole of England on your case. Also, the argument that it is a current news item is bogus. The Hurricane Katrina article was never considered for deletion when the event was happening, and nor should it have been. Wallie 07:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. --60.242.95.95 08:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, we are not a news site. It is highly likely that our current article is factually wrong in some significant way, even if it is up to date with the latest breaking news.  These sources can not be called reliable because they are based on opinions and investigations that are ongoing. John Vandenberg 10:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article might be wrong isn't a reason to delete, surely. There's a pretty high chance that there are significant errors in a good many articles, but that means they should be rewritten to remove the inaccuracies. The sources tend to be newspaper articles and the like, which are held to be reliable in most other situations - regardless of the fact that they provide only a snapshot of an ongoing situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it has little hope of being right. The facts have not been established in a meaningful way.  Can you tell me with 100% assurance that Nai Xin Xue placed his wife in that trunk ?  If not, it belongs on WikiNews, which is built to deal with issuing appropriate updates.  What is the significance of this event; what were the ramifications? John Vandenberg 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What it has, though, is considerable hope of being as right as it can be as the events develop. New facts come to light about everything every day, particularly in relation to crimes and other things like that, and presumably dedicated editors will add those to the article as they do. The article is prominently festooned with the "Current Event" template, so I'd expect things to alter on a regular basis, just as is the case with any other article with that template. Additionally, the article doesn't say that Mr Xue put his wife in the boot of the car. It says that Mr Xue's wife was in the boot of the car, which is all that is publicly known at the moment. An important distinction, I'm sure you'll agree. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The current event template is not appropriate. This is not an event in the sense that Hurrican Katrina or 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake were events; this is a crime investigation! John Vandenberg 03:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, I fail to see your distinction. Yes, it's a crime investigation. In a crime investigation, new information comes to light all the time. Why does that mean that it's a problem? I can't claim to have been involved in the discussion surrounding the creation of the Current Event template, but unless there's some kind of definition for its use, I don't see where this distinction comes from. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So, how is this different from the Madeline McCann case? Do you know who abducted her? Wallie 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wallie,WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument for keeping an article. If you think other articles were created because they're in the recent news headlines (and they were allowed to exist, "so why not this one?"), it's quite possible those articles (including Madeline McCann) are future AfD candidates, too. It happens. That said, I'm not sure why you think Hurrican Katrina, a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions with immediate financial, political, and social implications, somehow justifies keeping a one week old news story about an alleged kidnapping and murder that, in my opinion, still violates WP:NOT. J Readings 21:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Madeline McCann also depends entirely on newspaper articles and there are way too many of them. If it was at Afd, I would be vetting those to see which sources are in-depth journalism vs breaking news reports.  As it happened almost five months ago, and most of the important facts are now known, I expect that some of the sources will contain very thorough journalism, so I expect that my opinion on that article would be keep and improve. John Vandenberg 03:08, 23 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.