Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Cantu




 * 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. As far as I can tell, the general consensus seems to be leaning towards keep. This is indeed an out-of-the-ordinary case, and at the moment it seems notable enough for an article. Once the dust settles, the situation can be re-evaluated in a few months. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandra Cantu

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

Note: In the interest of being bold, I renamed and moved the article to "Murder of Sandra Cantu". I checked on the "rules" for ongoing deletion debates, and this is an acceptable action for me to take while this current debate is in progress. See Bullet Point Number 4 at Guide to deletion. The deletion discussion follows below. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Update: It was pointed out to me that this case is a homicide at the moment, as a "murder" (per se) is only alleged and not yet proven. I tend to agree with that assessment.  Sorry for yet another move, but I thought it appropriate.  I moved "Murder of Sandra Cantu" to "Sandra Cantu homicide" ... consistent with "Caylee Anthony homicide".  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Deletion Discussion:

It's a sad death, but dying is not encyclopedic in itself. Wikipedia also isn't a news service and unless the culprit is caught, it's unlikely something non-news-ish can be written. Article claims to be in the process of revamping but wasn't touched for the 10 hours prior to me tagging it. Mgm|(talk) 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Although the disappearance and death have received daily coverage (at least in our local newspaper, 90 miles away), this is really better suited for WikiNews. There's lots of precedent that we don't have articles on every single crime victim. Sad to say, but this crime appears to be just like hundreds of other senseless murders.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Transwiki and delete. This is a news story that is unlikely to have any historical interest at present. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Transwiki to where? Junk Police (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikinews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a tragic outcome for a little girl's life and for the woman's family, but how is the story different than that of any other person who dies a tragic death. We all feel for all of those people. However, I do think that the Sandra Cantu's full story should be merged into an article about the disturbing turn in the life of Melissa Huckaby, whose article I was orginally looking for, but was redirected to this Cantu murder investigation article. Canihaveacookie Talk April 14, 2009


 * Keep - This has gone far beyond just a breaking story. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral, leaning delete. IMO the subject may attain further notability if the culprit is caught and identified, but for now I would lean toward a delete. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 01:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete while it received lots of coverage at the time, its not encyclopedic. Much better suited for wikinews.--RadioFan (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although this reminds me of a certain syndrome, it's at the top of the news. People will expect some coverage by Wikipedia. Since a female Sunday school teacher has been arrested in connection to the crime since this page was marked for deletion, I also suspect news coverage will increase. Calls for deletion are premature.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment while the arrest will bring this back into the news for a while, it's still not encyclopedic. Transwiki to Wikinews.--RadioFan (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - If nothing else ... it is highly notable that she was (allegedly) killed by a female, a mother, and her best friend's mother, to boot. Statistically, this almost never happens.  Everyone was expecting a male pedophile as the culprit.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Delete not everything in the news is notable for Wikipedia, i.e. not notable and not encyclopedic. feydey (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral I second the above, but solo killings of children by women are extremely rare (so says the AOL News article on the story). The information here should be used to support a relavent article. SoLowRockerMan (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - To amend my comment above ... this article should be kept ... but probably renamed as "Murder of Sandra Cantu" (or similar). I think that it is the crime itself that is notable, and not the victim per se.  This deletion debate comes up every time there is a highly publicized crime ... with deletion debates going back and forth on whether or not the victim was notable, whether or not the crime was notable, etc.  These ever-present debates would often result in inconsistent conclusions for different - yet similar - cases.  In response, some editors at Wikipedia came up with the following policy: Notability (criminal acts).  It is probably relevant in this case and in this debate.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

— Duplicate !vote: Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not think that these were "votes" to be tallied up. I thought that this was a discussion / debate.  You can clearly see from my second (follow-up) comment that I explicitly stated that I was amending my original comment.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep. This has gone far beyond being an average murder case now. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is as noteworthy and historical as other Wikipedia one-time events, such as the killings / missing children, including Adam Walsh, Polly Klaas, Christopher Barrios Jr., Dantrell Davis, Caylee Anthony, Madeleine McCann, Elizabeth Smart, Jon Benet Ramsey, etc.  Furthmore, it is getting coverage in national networks, including CNN 1 and FoxNews 2.  Finally, as has been reported in mulitple sources, the alleged killer is female and a mother of a younger child, highly unusual for this type of crime.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvsett (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is not your average murder case and is part of a sad history of child murders User:Donmike10


 * Keep See: Category:Murdered American children. wikipedia has numerous articles on such cases. while this is a fairly new case, the notability of the suspect makes it worthy of an article. as long as the article doesnt become a tribute to the girl. there are lots of newsworthy articles that start off with too much detail for an encyclopedia, but still deserve at least a small article. deletion should be reserved for nonnotable killings, which i believe this isnt. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a highly notable incident and an unusual killing that deserves its own page.StradTrumpeter (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Though WP:ONEEVENT or MWWS may apply. It can be reevaluated in the future if there is significant decline in coverage. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Highly notable case based upon special circumstances of the crime and gender of alleged perpetrator. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only reason why this should ever be kept is if, as per previous commenters, the circumstances of the crime and/or the gender of the perpetrator are found to be specially noteworthy. And then the article should emphasize those aspects specifically. But right now, the identity of the perpetrator isn't known, nor are the exact circumstances, so they cannot be judged noteworthy yet. In other words, the very things that make this case notable are currently not confirmed. If they ever are, there will be plenty of reliable sources to allow the appropriate article to be created. Since Wikipedia is not a news source, there's no reason to rush to publish; we can wait until we know for sure that the case is noteworthy and why. --lightspeedchick (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken in saying that "right now, the identity of the perpetrator isn't known". It is quite well-known, has been confirmed, and -- in fact -- is mentioned at length within the article.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC))


 * I just mean that she hasn't been found officially guilty yet. Or has she entered a guilty plea? --lightspeedchick (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I see what you mean. You meant the actual perpetrator ... and I misread that as the alleged perpetrator.  Either way, however, it is the characteristics of the (alleged) perpetrator that make this a unique and notable case.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Delete. This's better for wikinews. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Netural. It is sad but she was not only one, there are many many missing children who were murdered so we are having limited articles for them and they are not encylopedian issues but maybe memorial article. My mother's friend's kid was missing for two months before her kid was discovered in the woods so why she don't be on national news and wikipedia?????? I agreed with them about wikinews. If she is fitting in an encyclopedia article, she can. Memorial article may be a better idea. Cculber007(talk) 10:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If and when a trial develops facts that are notable in their own right, then this article can be restored.  But right now, apart from sensationalistic media coverage during a slow news week, and vague allegations in a criminal complaint, there is not much that distinguishes this case from the thousands of other murder cases that occur every year in the United States.  The California Reports and California Appellate Reports document tens of thousands of crimes, many of which are far more vicious and brutal than what has been alleged in the Cantu case, but because of the arbitrariness of media editors, most of those crimes get very little public attention. I am well aware of the horrible circumstances of this particular case, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site.  See WP:NOT.--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your statements are completely untrue. (a) There is, in fact, a great deal that distinguishes this case from the thousands of other murder cases that occur every year in the United States.  Expert criminologists are baffled at the allegations and at the characteristics of the alleged perpetrator (female, mother of small child, acting solo without a male instigator, no criminal history, etc.).  The FBI reports statistics on the absolute rarity of this type of case.  Thus, how on earth do you classify this case as a "garden variety" child kidnap-rape-murder that occurs thousands of times in the USA?  (b)  Your premise is completely unfounded. This case is not notable because of its "vicious and brutal" nature and its "horrible circumstances".  It is notable for other reasons, as outlined in the preceding sentences.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep. I agree with the others who are saying to keep it, the circumstances of the 'who' have brought this to be more noteworthy, though yes, every child who goes missing should have such attention, the fact that it was a woman and a Sunday school teacher, the daughter of a pastor, makes this a little more central. kaiaterra 11:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is way too much speculation and inference going on here based on sketchy reports based on minimal facts, all regarding a living person.  "The fact" that "it was a woman and a Sunday school teacher" etc.?  Really?  Is this a "fact?" There's a difference between a news blog and an encyclopedia, and that should be better recognized here. Steveozone (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you referring to? (a) There is no speculation.  (b) There are no inferences.  (c) These are hardly "sketchy" reports.  (d) These reports are not based on "minimal facts". (e) Yes, it is indeed a reported fact that the alleged perpetrator is "a woman and a Sunday school teacher".  (f) This case has been reported at great length in many, many, many very reputable sources ... and not simply in news blogs.  I don't understand your post at all, quite frankly.  Each and every point that you make is untrue.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC))


 * The point is that notability is based on a premise that is speculative--that in fact "it was a woman..." who committed a sexual assault in the course of murder (an intentional killing with malice aforethought). Yes the allegations have been made, in general terms, in the criminal complaint; however, little to no evidence has been presented or even discussed by those making the allegations, and none as to the sexual assault.  As the "alleged perpetrator" is only alleged, in conclusory, general and vague terms, to have committed this sexual act which forms the basis of the argument for notability, it seems to be premature to conclude that the event is notable.  BTW, I'll live with "unclear," but "untrue" seems a bit heavyhanded to me.  Lighten up! Steveozone (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes ... she is obviously an alleged perpetrator at this stage, as opposed to a convicted perpetrator. The notability of this case lies in the details / characteristics of the alleged perpetrator.  The fact that she is an alleged (as opposed to convicted) perpetrator does not in any way lessen her notability.  Thus, notable ... thus, keep and don't delete.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Note: In the interest of being bold, I renamed and moved the article to "Murder of Sandra Cantu". I checked on the "rules" for ongoing deletion debates, and this is an acceptable action for me to take while this current debate is in progress. See Bullet Point Number 4 at Guide to deletion. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Update: It was pointed out to me that this case is a homicide at the moment, as a "murder" (per se) is only alleged and not yet proven. I tend to agree with that assessment.  Sorry for yet another move, but I thought it appropriate.  I moved "Murder of Sandra Cantu" to "Sandra Cantu homicide" ... consistent with "Caylee Anthony homicide".  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:19, 15 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.