Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Marie Johnson


 * 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   no consensus. It seems to come against not meeting WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E versus the establishment of notability via the sources given (plus the national coverage, some of which were added near the end of the deletion discussion). Neither side came out on top here. –MuZemike 02:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Marie Johnson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This unreferenced WP:BLP of a rural Idaho teenager who shot her parents fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E. This crime doesn't appear to have even attracted widespread press coverage at the time; all I can find are a few articles in the Idaho Mountain Express and Guide. Pburka (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Another local news story which is only notable beyond the crime's area by the producers of bad time-filling true crime programs on cable. No real impact beyond that.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - the media section tells me another story. Thats this crime has actually been of a kind that are choosen to appear on a number of crime-telling shows. Also I know for a fact that her story got alot of attention because Sarah Marie was only a girl and so young when committing these acts and also sentenced.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you pretend to know for a fact is irrelevant, you are not a reliable source. - DonCalo (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IKNOWIT is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although the article is lacking in references, it does appear that the crime received national coverage. I would be OK with renaming as Murders of Alan and Diane Johnson, however, my preference is to keep it titled as is since it is an attribute of the perp (i.e. her age) which resulted in all the coverage. Location (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable and unreferenced. Another parochial case that fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP. - DonCalo (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. A quick search doesn't seem to generate many references to this, but I've added one that I did find. The case itself is a shocking one, but sadly not unique. Maybe if someone can prove it got national coverage in the US (I've also only found references in Idaho media so far) then it could stay. If kept, I too would suggest a move to a more appropriate title. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Try also searching for Alan and Diane Johnson which seems to generate a few more hits about this case. If I have some time in the next couple of days I'll trawl through them and see what's worth adding. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, but references will not make the case notable. Wikipedia is not a news agency documenting every single murder case. It simply is not noteworthy and should be deleted. - DonCalo (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, and as I noted above, it's not an uncommon case. If references could prove its noteworthiness then that would be a different matter, but I have a feeling this case probably isn't that high profile outside Idaho. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the case is in books and multiple true crime websites and tv shows. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned randomly in a book about crime scene investigations and some contemporary TV shows does not make one notable. WP:CRIME requires that historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. - DonCalo (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does according to WP:GNG, as a matter of fact that is the definition of notability. I haven't a clue what a "random" mention in a book is. The Wikipedia article Macromantics is random when discussing Sarah Marie Johnson, since Wikipedia gave me that article when I hit "random article". A full page discussion of the evidence from the investigation in a book is not random, by any definition, and it is just silly to suggest it. ABC News and CNN are the reliable secondary sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Just a heads up to let people know someone has moved this to Murder of Diane and Alan Scott Johnson. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG as there are now multiple sources referencing this case. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E--Kylfingers (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2011 (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.