Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marjorie Orbin

:{{la|Marjorie Orbin}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marjorie_Orbin Stats])

:({{Find sources|Marjorie Orbin}})

It seems doubtful to me that this person meets notability criteria under WP:PERPETRATOR or WP:BLP1E. Using AfD and not Prod because Americans with a better view of the case might disagree. BenTels (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:Keep - This article does not fail WP:PERPETRATOR per, 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Marjorie has been the subject of several tv-crime series and she herself had appeared in a film which was heavily covered in media at the time and by the tv-crime series. She also passes WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E for me is very vague has someone could be known for one event but still be notable within that event such as here. A google search brings 19 400 specified hits on her. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

::Even a book has been made about her and her case in particular called Dancing with Death: The True Story of a Glamorous Showgirl, her Wealthy Husband, and a Horrifying Murder as stated in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

::Comment: Possibly -- I find it difficult to judge. Sex and money are the two most common motives for murder, dismemberment is grizzly but not exactly unheard of and it wouldn't exactly be the first time someone made a television movie (or devoted an episode of a real crime series) to a murder. Like I said, I'd like more and broader views from across the pond on this one. Too uncertain for me. -- BenTels (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Not to sound rude, but I think you are placing your own personal bar for notability for this article subject too High. As often users do with crime articles. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

::::With that reasoning one could claim that the Aurora mass shootings are not notable because mass shootings has occured previously and with bigger casualty numbers. But we can't place our bars too high.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::Just to be clear here, I am not saying the crime in question is too small to be mentioned on Wikipedia. What I am saying is that I am uncertain as to whether or not the perpetrator of this crime has met the notability requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia, that I cannot judge from the particulars presented in the article as it stands now and that I am asking for input from others (other than myself and, also not to be rude, the author of the article). If those others feel the standard has been met, then that is perfectly fine with me. But I still feel the need to ask the question. -- BenTels (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::Well, that is perfectly fine. We need more input I agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GNG. Sources demonstrate the presence of significant coverage in major media outlets. WP:PERP #2 is essentially useless as a guideline in that most of it is open to interpretation (i.e. the determination of what is an unusual motivation, and the determination of what is sustained coverage beyond contemporaneous news coverage). WP:BLP1E is troubling to me, too, in that it is frequently used as a guide for deleting articles rather than as guide for renaming articles. Articles about criminal events, perpetrators, and victims are often intertwined, so I think WP:EVENT is entirely relevant, and this particular case and its perp have received national coverage in major media outlets. An argument could be made that this should be renamed as Murder of Jay Orbin, however, I would recommend that it stay as titled in that the media coverage is due to the perp rather than the victim. Location (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another crime of passion by otherwise not notable people, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

:How?--BabbaQ (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The crime appears to have received widespread and persistent national coverage including a book about it. However, I believe it is the crime that is notable, rather than the perpetrator, and I believe the article should be retitled Murder of Jay Orbin per usual practice. Marjorie Orbin is not notable in herself, but only as the murderer of her husband - the perpetrator of a notorious crime. Such a move would leave a redirect for those who are searching under Marjorie Orbin's name. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Name change made.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2012 (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.