Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Behl


 * 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. -  Daniel.Bryant  07:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Taylor Behl

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was written shortly after its subject's murder in 2005. However, being the victim of a murder does not automatically indicate encyclopedic notability, and there are no other indications of notability. Also, the article is written like a crime log, and not an encyclopedia article. Core desat  00:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Coverage by multiple reliable sources; could use cleanup. Mfko 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak delete  Weak keep I guess I am now convinced this was enough of a national thing...  I'm not convinced that yet another murder victim, even a high-profile one, deserves an entry. Certain cases become national in scope or raise deeper issues, but this one doesn't look to me like it really falls into that category. --Brianyoumans 02:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Brian, it looks to me that you are looking for a threshold of "importance", where WP calls for "notable" and the guidelines clearly state that the two are not the same. Notable is defined as being noticed, and media coverage to this degree is being noticed, whether the legal issues are important or not.  Dito for Otto below.  It's not for WP to judge the quality of mainstream journalism (e.g., Nancy Grace) but to offer factual information as a balance to the potential sensationalism.  Again what is the harm of inclusion of this and other articles? --Kevin Murray 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, my arguments are based in notability, not importance. I have argued here and elsewhere that there is a qualitative difference between something being "newsworthy" and something being "notable." WP:NOTE specifically states that the two are not the same. Even assuming that this particular murder is notable, which I'm not convinced of, that does not automatically confer sufficient notability to the victim. See my Brinks and Capitol shooting article examples below.
 * As for judging the quality of journalism, WP:V and WP:RS do require that we evaluate the reputability of the sources used for articles.
 * "What is the harm," with all due respect, is perhaps the worst argument for including an article. No article (other than false or libelous ones) actually "harm" Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that every article warrants inclusion. Otto4711 19:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, the murder was newsworthy but the topic is not notable. I think we need to visit the issue on when a crime victim becomes notable enough for inclusion, since most murders generate at least a couple of stories especially from the likes of Nancy Grace. Otto4711 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets criteria for notability, i.e. "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Rosemary Amey 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a distinction between the person being notable and the criminal act that caused their death being notable. See for example Brinks robbery (1981) which is notable and Edward O'Grady, who was killed in the robbery but was not notable enough for a separate article. Also U.S. Capitol shooting incident (1998) which is notable while the separate articles for John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut were merged into the incident article. Otto4711 07:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Etc., etc., etc. Seriously, take your pick. I'm not vouching for every individual story, but the overwhelming volume (A Nexis search confirms over 500 stories nationwide) and the fact that this was covered in huge news outlets all over the country. Maybe you could argue The Washington Post is local coverage, but honestly 20 times (says Nexis) in WashPost? That's not "anybody who gets murdered" coverage, that's something exceptional by itself. And as for "no sources attesting to this" the article itself already sites sources that mention this stuff. I really think this is a speedy obvious keep.--JayHenry 08:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete just another murder victim. Nearly every such person will recieve multiple articles written about their deaths, thus notability is not established.  Resolute 05:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Strong Keep Although most murder victims don't pass WP:BIO, this one clearly passes by a landslide. What possible reading of WP:BIO does this fail?  Further, as clearly outlined in the opening of this article, this nationally-publicized murder is also notable as part of the Missing white woman syndrome and an Internet cause célèbre.--JayHenry 06:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How? There are no sources attesting to this. --Core desat  07:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * About two minutes on Google:
 * 1) Dateline NBC story on Taylor
 * 2) America's Most Wanted profile
 * 3) CBS News 48 Hours long segment
 * 4) Fox News Greta Van Susteren on Taylor
 * 5) CNN's Nancy Grace on Taylor
 * 6) Story specifically about MySpace and the crime
 * 7) WashPost 1 of however many
 * 8) WashPost 2 of however many
 * 9) WashPost 3 of however many
 * Okay, I just reread WP:CSK and in light of the fact that others agree it should be deleted I agree it doesn't apply at all. Replacing "speedy" with "obvious"...--JayHenry 08:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep though I'm not going to say "speedy" because I understand the delete voters arguements. However she does pass WP:BIO. James086 Talk  06:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CSK does not apply anyway. Otto4711 07:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand both sides of this argument, however after a little investigation I discovered that Wikipedia has articles on murderers whose only notability is that they have been executed. The facts of their cases have been obscured through the years. Take for instance John W. Peoples, Jr.. In addition, this is one of the few instances where the victim gained more notoriety than the murderer, and that alone bears importance. Sectryan 14:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with one of the Richmond papers cited that this is just another case of a missing white girl getting disproportionate newspaper coverage that the other 99 missing people in Richmond that year did not. Her tragic death is no more encyclopedic than theirs. Her mother worked hard to publicize the case. That does not make it encyclopedic either. This is not a newspaper archive, and news is not always history. Inkpaduta 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I agree that this article conforms to the letter of WP:BIO. However, the hype about this event has died down, and I don't think that this will be notable for long. Furthermore, the article seems to be linked to by only various user pages and lists, so I think that if the article is not being used by another real article soon it should be removed. Samael775 18:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I don't understand the rationale behind the AfD nomination.  This article is not about the woman; it is about the homicide which is clearly notable as demonstrated by multiple verifiable sources.  In a perfect world you might clarify the issue by calling it "Homocide of Taylor Behl", with a redirect from "Taylor Behl".  But I don't think that is required.  I'm concerned that an admin would nominate this.  --Kevin Murray 18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Newspapers seem to think she's notable. --Calibas 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several articles on murder victims including this one: Anna Svidersky -- † Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - she has been the subject of multiple (several dozen at least), non-trivial, reliable news (national) publications, which alone qualifies her for WP:Notability. In addition, she's the subject of a book--what more could one want for notability?  I agree with the nom that "being the victim of a murder does not automatically indicate encyclopedic notability", but being the subject of so much attention and published coverage (news, books, TV, etc.) certainly does.  -- Black Falcon 23:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * She's the subject of a book written by her mother, which is not an independent source for purposes of notability. Otto4711 23:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've heard of her and read a review of her mother's book, so she must be notable to some extent! Nick 80.225.131.144 17:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I am aware of this person and there are good sources.SlideAndSlip 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: only because she passes the letter of WP:BIO per news articles, although these are strictly about the murder case, and not about her per se. There's not much of a bio anywhere, except for her mother's book, but that isn;t independent. However, trying not to be cold and callous but just objective, I don't see this as anything more than "just a murder", thus falling within WP:NOT. I can't quite put my finger on what makes the case special from all the others, but I do despair now that any pretty white girl who disappears and gets press is now considered "Missing white woman syndrome". Could it be time to look at WP:BIO again? Ohconfucius 02:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional remark. Are we ourselves perpetuating the Missing white woman syndrome by not deleting this? Ohconfucius 04:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep passes by BIO and V. Sarah 08:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough information on it and enough media attention to be an article. 14:33, 14 Feb 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.