Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunday Express Dunblane controversy


 * 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.

With the days passing since it's nomination on 19 March 2009, the sentiment of the !voters was clearly drifting away from deletion, so the question was not if but how to keep it. Keep and merge !votes are roughly equaling in strength of argument, with a slight numerical advantage for merge. But there is no consensus amongst those !voting merge as to where to merge it to, although they all agree that the information should be kept in Wikipedia. Given this, I closed it as "keep" for now but with no objection to a later merge if there is a consensus for it on the related talk page(s).  So Why  15:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sunday Express Dunblane controversy

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

Non notable attack against Paula Murray by bloggers - see the poorly and unsourced material before clean up in this and Paula Murray failing wp:blp and wp:SPS. All of that's fine for blogs, not for an encyclopedia: WP:COATRACK. See also Articles for deletion/Paula Murray. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t09:59z 09:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's probably better to merge this into the actual Dunblane massacre article, than in a stand alone article. And I wouldn't say the subject was "non-notable" as it's now been referred to the PCC. 62.25.109.197 (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - either with the Daily_Express section, or with the Dunblane massacre article as listed above. --David James Bailey (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone can find more articles from major news sources like the Guardian piece (news.google doesn't have anything else yet), I would support a merge to Daily Express, making the 2 articles now up for deletion redirects instead. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t20:05z
 * The problem with expecting further mainstream press coverage of this issue is that the UK press is reluctant to report on PCC criticism, even if its about the coverage of rival papers. Only The Guardian, with its specialist Media section, tends to pick up on this kind of story (which it has in this case) - the other outlet which covers this sort of thing is Private Eye, but that is only biweekly. Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's wrong to characterise the controversy as an "attack against Paula Murray by bloggers" - the Dunblane survivors themselves have complained to the Press Complaints Commission, which is considering the complaint. This is at least as notable as other press controversies which have their own pages on Wikipedia. At the least it is important enough to be added to the Dunblane massacre article. Also, doesn't the involvement of comedians and writers who have their own Wikipedia entries speak to notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuchmoreexotic (talk • contribs) 12:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is not notable and has almost no link to the massacre to merit merging. However, it would be notable if the Sunday Express was sued and fined so much money it went out of business. But it won't. So it isn't. Not every referral to the PCC is notable or encyclopedic.--ML5 (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be setting the bar to notability very high - there are many other newspaper controversies covered in Wikipedia which didn't involve the paper being forced out of business. Also, massacre survivors themselves are directly involved, in that they have complained to the PCC, so I disagree that there's "almost no link to the massacre". Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm also unaware of the "notability = being forced out of business" rule. I've heard also that the Sunday Express intends to print an apology this week; if so, I think this definitely increases the notability aspect. I'd suggest waiting to see if this happens before making any decisions?
 * OK, my fault for over-egging my point. What I should have said was Wikipedia is meant to be an on-line encyclopedia, not a place to report 'news'. Just because a newspaper may (or may not) be causing mischief to sell more newspapers and gets itself complained about, doesn't mean to say its actions are notable. I live in Scotland and I haven't seen any of this making headlines. Time will tell if this issue becomes properly notable. Delete the article, and let's see if anyone's talking about it in a couple of months.--ML5 (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an unusual wrinkle in this particular case re: notability, in that the UK press tends not to give much coverage to PCC complaints in general. Journalists don't want to be seen to attack a newspaper which they may end up working at, and tabloid newspapers don't want to publicise the means of redress against them or how often they get things wrong. This story has been covered by one national newspaper, it directly involves another national newspaper, and it involves complaints made directly by two of the Dunblane survivors to the national newspaper watchdog. Is that not already notable enough to support at least a merge? Amuchmoreexotic (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per nom Sceptre (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is becoming more notable by the day (Unfortunatley I can't cite a colleague mentioning it to me this morning on here =) and as such deletion would, IMO be premature RobertWrayUK (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO it's the notability that's premature - Wikipedia isn't meant to be a news source.--ML5 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cautious merge - This seems a rather shameful piece of "journalism," given that all the survivors of the actual class attacked are by definition now 18 or 19 years old adults who are legally free to drink, have sex, and otherwise lead their lives as they choose. This does, however, appear to be turning into a genuine controversy, but at the moment would be better placed in the article proper. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main article for the massacre. DGG (talk) 18:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pernom, who said it better than I could. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least until the situation completely unfolds; consider merging into the Dunblane massacre article at that point. This is a fairly big deal here in Scotland; definitely notable. Spudtater (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has a world view which extends outside the US. This story is ery much an account of a notable event in the linear development of the Dunblane tragedy. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Keeep
 * Merge or Keep Normally, this would be a straight speedy deletion, and when I saw these articles, and the Facebook announcements of their creation, my first thought was "this will have been deleted by the time I click the link". It is a lot better written than most articles which would otherwise be personal attacks though, and has at least made some effort to be in the appropriate style and to be referenced properly. I also think the controvers does seem to be becoming more notable, and while it might just die it might become a bit of a bigger thing as well, so I'd be fine with keeping it and merging later if it does die. Either way though it does warrant a section in the Dunblane Massacre article, I think it's notable enough for that if not it's own article. So, yeah, either is fine by me. Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a big enough story, still unfolding, to warrant it's own page. It is an event in itself, not directly linked to the tragedy but to issues of breach of privacy and Sunday Express sensationalist journalism. throwoutyourarms (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.129.63 (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main article for the massacre.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Dunblane massacre article at the very least, though if the story continues to grow it could warrant its own article.--Victim Of Fate (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep possibly merge later.Captainzob (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into Dunblane massacre or Daily_Express. This remains controversial two weeks on and, as a side issue, is expanding into debate about the effectiveness of the Press Complaints Commission. DrDaveHPP (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Dunblane massacre. There is still plenty of room in that article to accomodate this side issue. JamesBurns (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the paper has printed an apology, the controversy is now clearly notable. Can we remove the delete flag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amuchmoreexotic (talk • contribs) 10:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the process has started and so must be completed, especially as consensus is not exactly unanimous as would warrant early closure under WP:SNOW Caissa&#39;s DeathAngel (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Daily_Express and reference in Dunblane massacre.  This is a notable event, but not one that merits an individual article. &mdash;Neuro (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with this proposal. 87.66.3.68 (talk) 08:54, 23 March 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.