Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefanie Rengel


 * 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. There may be some merit in the Facebook part of the story being mentioned alsewhere, but Ms Rengel herself was not notable.  BLACK KITE  14:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Stefanie Rengel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The only claim to notability seems to be her murder, which of itself does not satisfy notability standards. HookOnTheWall (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Rengel has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable published sources, as seen in the references, not to mention a Google News search. Not only was she murdered, but the online publication of her alleged killers' names in defiance of a gag order has led to a debate over the relevance of Canadian censorship laws; see Facebook phenomenon latest legal obstacle, say critics, CBC News, Friday, January 4, 2008. I am not sure what particular part of notability standards is not met; can the nominator be more specific? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is that I can't find a standard that is met. The news articles that I have seen on this case all seem to be trivial coverage, albeit from reliable published sources. Many murder victims will have numerous articles covering their murder. The Google search you included seems to include a number of articles from Canadian, and primarily local/Toronto, media organisations which is far from unusual for any murder. Simply because their has been some discussion in the media regarding Facebook and censorship laws, would not itself seem to make this individual notable enough for their own article (perhaps a note could be added to the Facebook article, instead). HookOnTheWall (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even though I voted to delete, I should point out it has garnered national coverage, such as this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did say above that it got national coverage. HookOnTheWall (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*Delete It's a sad story but it's also a clear case of WP:NOT Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral None of the information mentioned above was included in the article. If it were, I would vote to keep. This article may need to be watched, if the noteworthy information is not added, it will need to be deleted as in its current form it does not meet notability. Rotovia (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Put me down as Neutral, too, per User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It'sad but Delete. Not notable person. --Paukrus (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable person Lugnuts (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename as Death of Stefanie Rengel. The death (not the person) has significant implications for conflict between international sites like Facebook and domestic laws. WWGB (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Whilst Wikipedia is not news, this may be significant in some way in the future. I don't object to giving this article a chance.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK let's apply a bit of logic here. From the comments we seem to have three things that could be notable:
 * The girl - There seems to be no indication that the girl was notable in her own right
 * The murder - There seems to be no indication that the murder was notable in its own right
 * The Facebook "controversy" - This may be notable (although it seems far too early to say), but even if it is, it should at most be a note in the Facebook article, until this potentially becomes an article in its own right (even then it should not be an article about the girl or the murder - although redirects may well be appropriate). At best it seems that we initially would have a merge of relevant information into Facebook and then a redirect. HookOnTheWall (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this is not really an article about Rengel per se. It doesn't need to say what primary school she went to or what's the name of her dog. I titled the page Stefanie Rengel because it's the most obvious and (to me) logical title. However, I don't agree that her murder was not notable; clearly it garnered non-trivial coverage from reliable published sources. That doesn't mean that we necessarily need an article about it, or that such an article shouldn't be deleted, but "non-notable" is just flatly contradicted by the core notability guideline. The Facebook issue, again, has been the subject of significant commentary in reliable published sources. See the two sources given in the article, Facebook proves problematic for police and Gag orders in a Facebook age, for starters.
 * I have seen more than a few articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, many of which had little or no notability or implications for society beyond simply being tragically killed. See Taylor Behl, for example, or Naomi Almeida. Aqsa Parvez, 16, was the victim of an apparent honour killing in the same area as Rengel only a few weeks before, and has a page. A quick perusal of Category:Murder victims or a subcat such as Category:Murdered Canadian children will reveal a lot of articles like this. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but when both policy and current practice seem to be in line with keeping such articles, I don't see the reason for deletion. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia isn't a memorial. GJ (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per User:GreenJoe; we must be consistent in these matters.Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Meets no notability requirements and isn't even that interesting. OneHappyHusky (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, folks, can you elaborate on these !votes? So far as I can see, there's a very large number of reliable published sources who covered this non-trivially (ie, passes the core notability guideline) and the whole point of WP:NOT is that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable". &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will elaborate - having nominated two other articles for deletion for the same reasons the majority of those voting to delete have outlined herein, it would be hypocritical and inconsistent for me to vote otherwise. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename This is the first murder of the New Year in Canada, as well as having reliable sources as given above. It should however, be moved to Death of Stefanie Rengel as per WWGB, as the events occuring after the murder, such as the releasing of the underage suspects' names (illegal under the Youth Criminal Justice Act is notable and should be recorded. --Patar knight (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because it is simply a news article about a murder, not an educational resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakenekrassov (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * — Jakenkrassov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete per nom & comments --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per lots of precedent - no articles for people notable only for their death. Will society remember this person three years from now? If yes, let's repost it then. -- Y not? 05:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The young lady was not a notable person, her death was not unusual, the Facebook incident was interesting but hardly noteworthy on a national or international scale. This could lead to an unmanageable precedent. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee." Richard Avery (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But it clearly was noteworthy on a national scale; here's fallout from the Facebook "outing" in British Colombia, on the West coast. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is notable because of the way Facebook waltzed right under the Canadian law prohibiting the publication of the names of young offenders. However, the article should properly be about the incident, not about Stephanie, since the victim herself isn't notable — the legal issues are what's notable here. Merge into Youth Criminal Justice Act as a subsection that's first and foremost about the implications of the case's Facebook angle vis-à-vis the act's publication ban on the names of the accused rather than about Stephanie herself. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have a point there. There has also been an incident involving teenagers, a cat, and a microwave (!?) which led to a similar "outing" on Facebook, and similar discussion. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - per Bearcat William Avery (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not close to notable. David D. (Talk) 20:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not Facebook or an extension of Facebook. I may feel sorry about her death, but she is just as notable as someone who died on the streets of Chicago, which in this case, not notable, given that Chicago has a similar population as its sister city, Toronto, where she died.  Facebook is a social networking website, while Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.  Online encyclopedias do not serve as a place of general communication, which is the main purpose of social networking websites.  Please add the relevant information about her death into the articles Youth Criminal Justice Act regarding criticisms of the criminal law in Canada, and Criticism of Facebook about the problems with particular social networking sites used to bypass a country's youth justice laws. Johnny Au (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. So because the article mentions Facebook, it's an attempt to make Wikipedia "an extension of facebook." What? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is more than just a passing mention. This article is an extension of Facebook, since it has a link to the Facebook group, and one of the Facebook discussions in that group have a link to this article. Johnny Au (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, the cited newspaper articles which mention the Facebook group by name, did they make their newspapers "extensions of Facebook?" You did read the article, right, and notice that the Facebook group in question is a significant factor in the notability of the person as a whole? And, uh, why not just delete the external link if it's the problem, rather than the whole article? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 06:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are entering a slippery slope here. Like Wikipedia, newspapers, such as the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star are definitely not externsions of Facebook, because Facebook's content is user generated, while newspapers are written by journalists.  So yes, the link should be removed. Johnny Au (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename &mdash; this isn't a biography, so it should be titled Death of Stefanie Rengel or something similar, as suggested above. The article content itself seems to meet the requirements of WP:V. *** Crotalus *** 11:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait... you're citing Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons? my bad &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The criteria is equally relevant to dead people, because it is actually in a section under Notability (people), it is just that WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E both link to the same section and Brewcrewer used the latter. HookOnTheWall (talk) 02:55, 13 January 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.