Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peterborough ditch murders

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterborough ditch murders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions....William 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a case of serial killing involving three murders and two attempted murders would normally be notable anyway, but where the alleged serial killer is a woman this is pretty unusual. The case is still ongoing and there could be more comes out. PatGallacher (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that NOTNEWS applies in this case, as the multiple murders make this case notable and there has been significant coverage. The fact that the case is currently in the news (due to the guilty plea) doesn't diminish the notability. TigerShark (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serial killers are notable. The fact that this involves woman stabbing three men to death and attempting to kill another two, makes this more notable. Women killers typically poison people whom they know, indoors. This case is as unusual as that of Aileen Wuornos, who shot her victims dead. This case would have much more coverage were it not for the fact that her co-defendants have pleaded not guilty and are therefore awaiting trial. This means that the media are limited in what they can say about the case. Jim Michael (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the deaths are a serial killing, as opposed to a mass or spree killing.[1][2] The three victims all lived in the same house, and died within 1-10 days of each other.Martin451 23:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these murders cannot be categorised as serial, they are still notable enough to justify the article, which needs expanding. Jim Michael (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what the others said --New Thought (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A spree killer is notable, a female one even more so. This meets WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The timing of its creation isn't ideal as there's still ongoing legal stuff, but it can always be expanded when that concludes and we know the facts. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already easily meets WP:GNG with undoubtedly more coverage to come when she is sentenced. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with arguments made above. Finnegas (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (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.