Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Casey Kearney

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 No Consensus there is simply no consensus below as to whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability or not. I do not believe that further relisting this will generate any clearer consensus, but that might change in a few weeks or months. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Casey Kearney

edit
Murder of Casey Kearney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a recent murder committed in the United Kingdom in somewhat unusual circumstances. The article was created this evening and PRODded shortly thereafter as WP:NOTNEWS. I feel, however, an AFD debate is more appropriate on something like this. I personally believe the victim's age and the nature of this crime make it notable, and there are certainly a lot of sources available on this subject. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per nominator, victims age, nature of the crime itself makes this notable. The article is in its infancy right now and will become better over time. Much like the Murder of Joanna Yeates article which was proded for the same reasons a few years back. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME as it is now. A quick search on Google gets alot of hits so no shortage of sourcing for the article as nominator points out.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't normally like speculating, but on this occasion hold off a little while until we have a better idea of whether it will meet WP:NCA. Whilst I agree there wasn't anything particularly unusual about this murder, it's got a lot of attention in the national press for one reason or another. If I had to make a guess now, it would be that this would get sustained coverage when this goes to trial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should perhaps slightly clarify my comments here. A stabbing itself is not unusual, but the circumstances of this one are thankfully less common, and consequently they do tend to receive more media coverage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part of the reason I put up the prod tag is because it gives a few days for people to look before there is any discussion. I think the fact the body and alleged perpetrator were found so quickly means this probably isn't going to get any persistent coverage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I respect your point of view, but I have been involved in similar discussions so many times (see Murder of Joanna Yeates, Death of Linda Norgrove and more). And it always becomes a matter of guessing the future and as long as no human have the ability to see what is going to happen in a week or a month time then it will remain a guessing game. For now this story has recieved attention beyond your average "stabbing" and should be kept, I would even go as far as saying that this case has recieved enormous amount of attention considering the attention a stabbing murder usually gets in the UK. And if in a couple of weeks/months this case has recieved no further coverage or attention then it should certainly be deleted. Hope you understand my point of view. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given the substantial amount of breaking news coverage this subject has gotten, should any new issues come up that clearly make it notable then you will most likely have more than enough sources to back it up and can feel free to recreate the article. Deletion is not the end. At some point in history any subject on Wikipedia would have failed to satisfy the inclusion criteria.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While sad, and locally horrific, this event doesn't rise to the level of a historic event as needed for WP:VICTIM or WP:BLP1E. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historic event? crystal ball much? Its been four days.. Your reasoning just doesnt add up, sorry. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with that interpretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The subject of this article is an event that does not (yet?) pass WP:NEVENT, specifically it does not meet WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, or WP:DIVERSE. We should expect a notable event to meet most or all of those criteria. It may be that this event will eventually meet those criteria, but without that crystal ball we cannot tell now. A compromise position would be to Userfy the article until such time as the criteria for WP:NEVENT are met. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have to agree to disagree and thats OK. I think it do pass WP:NEVENT per above already stated reasons. And IF in a few weeks time this article subjects coverage etc has faded then we can have new AfD discussion or talk page discussion on deletion of the article. User Chris Neville-Smith is right that we should hold off for now and see if the coverage fades down or future events concerning the case will continue to get the same massive attention as it has already got. But for now this should stay on Wikipedia. Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm happy to close the debate if you wanted to move it to your userspace. It would save it from the axe and give it time to see how things develops. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully decline that. I rather let the AfD go on and see if it is kept which I think it should be. And if deleted so be it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If crystal ball or guesses of the future notability of a article which is notable now is a reason for deletion then I take it. But I personally dont think guesses and visions into the future are enough when we have the present notability. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is proof also of continued front page coverage of the Casey Kearney case, well beyond the "murder and arrest" part of the investigation. Have many more news links from this present day if necessary...--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the coverage continues, have more if needed...--BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now -- We need to see how this story develops, and consider it on a new AFD nomination in a few months time. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's difficult to determine notability so soon after such an event, it certainly has the potential to merit an article and may well do so already. One would also expect a great deal of further coverage given the demographics of the victim. I do suggest people avoid linking to The Sun as proof of coverage, we can do far better than that, coverage in the various reliable sources makes a far better case. In conclusion, keep for now I think.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the past 24 hours have shown a dearth of coverage. Seems the issue is quickly falling off the media radar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still you dont seem to get the point that users want to give the article a few weeks to later evaluate if there has been coverage. Even if this story doesnt get coverage now for a few days it doesnt mean that it wont get more as time goes by. The article has so far recieved extensive coverage by the media, and even if the story is not in the media in the next few days it will not cange that fact. If anything coverage in a weeks time or later could indicate even more notability (while it has actually already established notability) because why would the media be interested when weeks has passed by if it isnt notable or a special case?--BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is coverage from the last 24 hours by the way, [1],. Have more of these if point is needed...--BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this passes WP:CRIME in my opinion. WP:NOTNEWS is always used on these kind of articles as a reason for deletion, but actually it doesnt apply here as it has been extensivly covered by media beyond the "crime and arrest" part of the investigation. Its not a "one day coverage" kind of case. I will not myself userfy this atleast as I am convinced that it belongs on Wikipedia already. And by the way, in where lies the harm in waiting a month or so to establish further coverage as most users who has said their opinion has pointed out? As already pointed out by many users above the case has recieved already an unusual high amount of coverage for a stabbing murder so It goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT and also passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that it does pass WP:GNG on all points and in the future if no longer covered by media then I will definitly be open for a deletion discussion but not now when it certainly passes for inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has also recieved further coverage in the last 24 hours.. so continued coverage. [2] . Have more of these if point is needed...--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•keep for now and revisit in a month or so.--94.234.170.83 (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has recieved more then usual coverage for these kind of events from the start that cant be disregarded. And as several users states there is no harm in keeping this article and in a/few months time re-evaluate the situation. For now it still passes WP:GNG and the coverage it still gets ahead of trial makes it pass WP:ONEEVENT. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself even label it a "significant news story" and most articles on Wikipedia comes from news at one time or another back in time. And as long as there are sourcing and the news has recieved significant coverage it should be included atleast for a month or so before someone can claim that their is no long term coverage of a story. Just saying...--BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Significant in this context would include international coverage. "more than usual" is not sufficiently significant for articles on current crimes, which like this one involve BLP considerations. That includes the top half of everything, and on a scale from utterly trivial to historic, halfway up is still trivial; I've usually been very inclusive about covering murders, but this seems a local story. I do not see the special circumstances except the apparent absence of motive, but that's not unusual. If there should be some important further developments, then there might be reason for an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is already coverage in The Netherlands.[4][5] and I've only done a very brief search. Also if it were simply local then Welsh and Northern Irish publications wouldn't be bothering with it either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of cause there is coverage in news sources, but this is news coverage of the crime, no indication that it will be of lasting significance. Mtking (edits) 01:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a crystal ball?..--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The continued coverage is all very limited and offers nothing significant about the event. Per WP:INDEPTH: "Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree now. The amount of coverage is unusual. People asked for international coverage and there's been more of that too. Not just in the Netherlands, but also the Republic of Ireland and even Australian now (and that's just from examining February 16th coverage).[7][8]--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More examples of international coverage (and all different sources to last time too).[9][10]
  • Delete - I see nothing notable about the victim or suspect (except for this incident), and nothing unusual or notable about the incident itself. Also seems to be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You dont expand beyond a personal opinion based in no guideline of the Wikipedia. It is not a violation of WP:NOTNEWS as it has recieved coverage ever since it happened on a local national and international level. Also per WP:GNG. if this article is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS then most articles on Wikipedia should be deleted on the same "one handed" bias.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's "received coverage ever since it happened". It only happened two weeks ago! It's still news. But let me add:
        • As per WP:NEWSEVENT#Inclusion criteria: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths... ) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
        • Same page: In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine.
        • I submit that the article has not satisfied any of those "various aspects", and nothing described gives the incident additional enduring significance. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I on the other hand think this article covers the aspects that you just listed. It has recieved continued coverage ever since it happened which is shown in reliable sources in the article. Your second point cant be evaluated yet as impact and duration cant be evaluated until a few months has past. If we should start to speculate about that it would become crystal ball-reasonings. But for now it has continued coverage the article contains reliable sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok, I'll go through them one item at a time:
                • Impact: What is it? I don't see it. One girl killed another girl, and was arrested. Nothing precendent-setting there.
                • Depth: Not much depth to go into. See "Impact".
                • Duration: Only 2 weeks, but ongoing. This item can be set aside for now.
                • Geographical scope: Happened in Doncaster, England; confined to Doncaster, England.
                • Diversity: Two English girls. In England. Not very diverse.
                • Reliability: BBC took notice. Some other news agencies noticed.
                • Coverage: I repeat: whether or not... widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
There. One item set aside, one barely passes. The rest all look like fails to me. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Casey_Kearney&oldid=1138103941"