Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randaline Fortune


 * 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 delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Randaline Fortune

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

Tragic, notable but simply a news story. Clearly falls into WP:NOT. In six months time there may be an article but currently there is simply a tragic news story. Wikinews is setup to cover this type of material Peripitus (Talk) 06:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (I was tempted to vote "Abstain") - I respect your nomination, Peripitus. Perhaps I should wait a little longer before creating the article anyway, until the matter is settled in court and we know what kinds of movements (activism) come of it.  I would still like to see the article stay, but I'm not going to be deeply offended if it gets deleted. Thanks for your sensitivity. Following are my reasons why I would consider it good to stay. That said, each of these issues could be answered by giving Randaline a mention as part of another, bigger, article:
 * It highlights issues of teenage pregnancy (Her mother is 17)
 * It highlights issues of child rape, particularly in South Africa
 * It will turn into a crime story when more information about the suspect becomes available. This will make it a good candidate for the WPCrime project
 * In short, it highlights all sorts of issues which I think could be good for an encyclopaedia. -GrahamDo (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the absence of a guideline for crime articles, I believe an article should assert some significance, and that must be attributed to sources. The article creator's defense above indicates a great desire to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and highlight areas about the case that he thinks are important. We have no indication as of yet that this story, other than generating some headlines, will have a practical effect on things like the rape epidemic in South Africa. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I apologise for giving the impression that I was trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. In truth, I have no personal interest in the case whatsoever.  I simply thought the story was very interesting, and that people deserved to see it.  Of course, I drew personal conclusions and made personal observations about the story's implications.  But I'd like to think that those opinions and observations don't come accross in the way the article is written. -GrahamDo (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Awful that it is, it isn't inherantly notable. That might change in time when the page can be recreated, but as it stands I don't think it deserves a page of it's own. Alberon (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable and wikipedia's purpose is not to highlight the issues that author's POV tell them should be highlighted --Fredrick day (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment OK how is this event not notable?! Even the original nominator said it was. -GrahamDo (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The original nominator was wrong. Sadly, murders of children happen far too often. For this particular rape and murder to have a page it needs to be notable above and beyond the average reporting that surrounds every similar event. That might seem a bit callous, but it is the only reasonable policy for this enclyclopedia. Otherwise you'd need hundreds of pages for all other similar murders. Alberon (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And what's wrong with that? :P Seriously, why shouldn't every murder that earns a place in the news have an article here? WikiNews is all well and good, but (a) it's not nearly as popular as Wikipedia, and (b) each and every murder/rape/whatever that occurs in the world involves different people, who have different reactions, and speaks to different philosophies and issues. Those far-reaching reactions to a particular story go way way beyond what's expected of WikiNews. -GrahamDo (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete vile though it is, this is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. It could be re-written to sound less like a newscast, but I don't think the content itself is encyclopedic TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't find WP:ONEVENT. What does it say? -GrahamDo (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The correct link is WP:ONEEVENT. See also WP:BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry for the typo on that. What it says is, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry."
 * Great, thanks! After careful consideration, I've actually decided I agree with all that this article is not warranted.  Should I go and mark it for speedy deletion now, or wait until this process is completed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamDo (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 March 2008 (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.