Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Lancaster
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Multiple reliable sources are available in this entrey, which apparently proves its notability. Non-admin closure.--NAHID 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sophie Lancaster
Nominated purely for notability issues, not to mention there are plenty of murder victims in the world and unlike Rhys Jones, this article isn't going to do anything to deserve its own article, not to mention that this is not a memorial site. Wiki Deleting Machine (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC) — Wiki Deleting Machine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep What notability issues exactly? It's been covered by a wide variety of local and national press and mentioned by Conservative Leader David Cameron in a speech about crime. How do you know what the article is 'going to do' in the future exactly? Does your wiki deleting machine have a TARDIS built into it too? Nick mallory (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close This AfD is the nominator's fourth edit. Suspect nomination was not made in good faith. Blueboy96 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. can you define why is this not done in a good faith, I had been contrubited to this site before and this is my first as an account holder, I'm sure I am entitled to nominate this for deletion. As for Nick, I'm sure David Cameron will do what other politians do and jump to the bandwagon and namedrop her in reference to fight crime and I'm sure Gordon Brown will do the same too, George Bush and Tony Blair has done this in the past. Wiki Deleting Machine (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? The point was her case was used by David Cameron in a speech to highlight a major issue, so giving this case the wider context it needs to merit a place on Wikipedia. If Gordon Brown mentioned her, that would make her less notable in your eyes? I don't understand the logic you're using here. Are you saying the article on Willie Horton should go for the same reason? Nick mallory (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. can you define why is this not done in a good faith, I had been contrubited to this site before and this is my first as an account holder, I'm sure I am entitled to nominate this for deletion. As for Nick, I'm sure David Cameron will do what other politians do and jump to the bandwagon and namedrop her in reference to fight crime and I'm sure Gordon Brown will do the same too, George Bush and Tony Blair has done this in the past. Wiki Deleting Machine (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Murdercruft sums it all up, there are plenty of murder victims, so if this stays, then why don't all murder victims get their article. Charley Uchea (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Socrates has an article but he should be deleted because not all Greeks have an article? What point are you trying to make here? I'm going by wikipedia's notability criteria, not making up non policies like 'murdercruft' to substantiate my argument. Once again, I'm agreeing with you that not all murder cases make it, but not all such cases get national press coverage (Daily Mail, Guardian, BBC etc) and have been used in speeches by the leader of the Conservative Party to highlight a wider issue. On a side note, does it seems strange to anyone that two completely different and unrelated people so new to wikipedia and with nothing on their user pages seem so passionate about this article at the same time? Nick mallory (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as Nick Mallory has stated above and does anyone else smell laundry...socks to be precise? Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They ain't my socks, I just changed mine. :-) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple mainstream national media sources, over a four month time period (the latest was yesterday) - this easily meets the notability requirements. As for other murder victims - if you can find multiple mainstream sources for them, feel free to create an article. That other articles have not been written is not sufficient reason to delete this one! (There are also plenty of murder victims who do have an article under Category:Murder victims). As for Wikipedia:Murdercruft, where is the appropriate Wikipedia page for this term? This reasoning sounds like Wikipedia:Cruftcruft to me. Mdwh (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - notability is well established. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that the nominator doesn't have the courage of his convictions to nominate under his main account doesn't help. --Stormie (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The goth-hate aspect makes it an especially notable murder. Wiki Keeping Machine (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2007 (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.