Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu


 * 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 -- Note that WP:NOTNEWS is a rejected policy, delete arguements based on this have been discounted. Gnangarra 01:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu


A murder victim; her murder is covered in the alleged murders article, she is not otherwise notable. Delete per WP:NOT a memorial. --Peta 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that process has not been followed - in particular there was no clear edit summary notifying of the nomination. This nomination should be considered with Articles for deletion/Ebony Simpson--Golden Wattle talk 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - she is definitely notable, particularly while the guy charged with her murder is still facing charges. - Richard Cavell 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete since so far there is just one functioning link to an article which says someone is to be tried for the crime. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor is it the daily court reporter. See also the proposed WP:NOTNEWS. Edison 18:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:Bio states A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. As can be seen from the most elementary google search she meets that criterion - the case was well reported with analogies being drawn to the James Bulger case, and even the suggestion that the murderer might have been one of the perpetrators in the Bulger case.--Golden Wattle  talk 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this case would indeed meet the notability threshold under the proposed NotNews policy as the case was the subject of newspaper coverage such that the the news item has received multiple paragraph coverage in multiple distinct articles over a multiple week time frame. --Golden Wattle  talk 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable per news articles about her.  We don't seem to have a policy on people who are temporarily notable due to news events, so.. --Mus Musculus 14:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I have no opionion about whether or not this should be kept, but it does seem most of the facts of the case are covered at Dante Arthurs. Do we really need two? And the mention of the rumor about Arthurs' identity seems out of place here.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Bduke 22:23, 15 March 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC).