Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylar Prockner


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Skylar Prockner

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although no murder should ever be considered run of the mill, there is nothing to distinguish this particular murder from being just another news story. No precedents were set in the case or the verdict, and although the case received some sensationalistic coverage, there is no evidence that this case will have any long term encyclopedic significance. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, this murder conviction did set a precedent for being one of very few cases of a child being sentenced as an adult in Canada. This has long term encyclopedic significance as a historical and precedent setting legal case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd7450 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The article makes no claims of this as a precedent-setting case. You'll need to expand the article to provide that information, with citations, before I'd be willing to change my opinion of the notability of the case. And being "one of the few cases" would not be precedent-setting. In order to be precedent-setting, it would need to be cited as a precedent in other cases; i.e. other judges sentencing other youths as adults based on the precedent set by this case. Although youths charged as adults may be rare in Canada, that alone is not sufficient to make this a notable legal case.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Murder is unfortunately far too common in this world for us to automatically create or maintain an article about every convicted murderer in existence just because of the standard media coverage that every murder would always get — to justify an article, what would need to be shown is some evidence that it satisfies the ten-year test for enduring significance. And as correctly noted by WikiDan, the fact that a youth being tried and convicted as an adult is relatively rare does not in and of itself make this a precedent case. The precedent that it's possible is set by the first case of it happening, not by every subsequent case that follows the precedent afterward — and this was not the first instance in Canadian history. Wikipedia's mandate does not include naming and shaming every person who ever committed a crime by immortalizing him for the rest of time in an international encyclopedia — we would need a reason why this is important enough to need an encyclopedia article, but none has been provided. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bearcat put it perfectly, we cannot have an article about every convicted murderer. Elliot321 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2017 (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.