Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox

:{{la|Murder of Jo Cox}}

:{{la|Death of Jo Cox}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Jo_Cox Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Murder of Jo Cox}})

This is going to be controversial, but I don't believe Jo Cox's article length is sufficiently large enough to warrant a spinoff article, even though many improvements have been made in the last 18 hours or so. For an analogous article, compare and contrast with Death of John Lennon. Discuss. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep This major crime attracted worldwide headlines and reactions. Per WP:NCRIME "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". See the category :Category:Assassinations and its many sub-categories including :Category:Assassination attempts. Issues surrounding the suspect, circumstances and motive should not be covered in the BIO of the victim. Rather disappointed we are going to be arguing about this. AusLondonder (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge. The content of this article can be taken care of in the main article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 07:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - given the context and that Cox is first British female MP to be murdered, the event is notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep It is inconceivable to me that the first assassination of a British MP in a quarter of a century, which received instant worldwide media attention, would not be notable. Certainly the nominator has better things to do with their (and our) time. Such as improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:::Which article would you like me to improve? Ironically enough, looking to improve the article (I put the lead blurb on ITN yesterday) is why I came here. I would rather work with people on one good article (not to be confused with a good article) than dilute my efforts over several. However I figure it's impossible to have a conversation like this right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

::::Nominating for deletion is not generally seen as improving an article. AusLondonder (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Please see here for a possible link to the suspected misuse of process. Mootros (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge Sizewise this doesn't meet WP:SIZESPLIT at this moment, so could be accommodated within parent article. Brandmeister^talk 07:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|Brandmeister}} Little of the suspect is known and a trial will most likely occur. Please help improve it from the current state. AusLondonder (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

::Likely, but now it's too soon. If enough info becomes available for a standalone article and/or the main article becomes too large, then yes, I think. Brandmeister^talk 07:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The first assassination of a British MP in a quarter of a century, as said before. There will be a trial to ought to be covered in detail. This particular AfD seem to be a misuse of process and the nominator could well be seen as filibustering. Mootros (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep This is currently getting a lot of media attention, as already said this is the first assassination of an MP in 25 years, the event will be in the news for a while as more information is known Seasider91 (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge. There is nothing here that cannot be covered adequately in the main article Jo Cox. WWGB (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Weak keep {{edit conflict}} Let it snowball for a week or two, and see then if it's notable for having it's own article. Her bio is very small, so it could probably fit in there well.  — Calvin999 07:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Delete/merge for now mainly because of WP:BLPCRIME issues. "Murder of" isn't suitable until a trial has finished. UK law is strict on sub judice and I don't want to read about the defence or the judge at any trial or appeal complaining about things that were in the Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Let's move it to Death of Jo Cox then. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• The move has already been requested (as there is a technical block). Pls comment on the talk page if you may. Mootros (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep This will be an ongoing event and removes the bloat from the main bio. As the alleged attacker is alive, there will be a trial and a knock-on affect from that, which will be used to expand the article further. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above and WP:SNOW. Philip Stevens (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge -- per Ritchie. There is no reason why this should be a spin off of a very short existing article. The death is also very recent and not that complex when you compare it to other murder investigations. This can easily be incorporated into Cox's existing article. Cassianto^Talk 08:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for now I agree with Calvin999. The article should be kept for now but reassessed in a few weeks once everything has died down and a better determination can be made as to if a separate article is warranted. I also agree with Cordless Larry that until a Murder conviction is obtained (even though that's pretty much certain) the article should be renamed as "Death of Jo Cox" or "Assassination of Jo Cox" as per the discussion on the talk page Davethorp (talk) 08:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep I think that this is a story that will still evolve, and the page already has some information that I think would best not be merged with her personal article, nor should be deleted. Amelie poulain (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge -- No need for a separate article when all relevant information can easily fit in her biographical article. She was notable as a politician as well as for her death, so (choosing one article over the other) only a bio article is needed at the moment. Details of the suspect should be keep to a minimum and we really don't need a long list of tributes. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 09:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep for now: current event, will have more details in upcoming weeks. Keep for now, delete later if needed. Zamaster4536 (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Merge. This is a discussion regarding article namespace, not notability. Nobody is suggesting that the event should not be recorded in WP (a little trimming of the unnecessary will happen in due course, we are not expecting some international figure to say it's a good job she's dead, are we?) If later the murder becomes notable for some reason (i.e. subsequent events outside the scope of the individual), or because of WP:SIZE, then it can be split out again. Let's be honest, anybody who wants to read about the murder will also want/need details of poor Jo too, there is no logic to separation. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

:{{u|Richhoncho}} Trim it now. Don't try and do it when less people will object. AusLondonder (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

::{{u|AusLondonder}}, I suggested a merge and gave a view, it is highly unlikely I will ever edit the Jo Cox article or anything to do with her death. Is that alright with you? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep High profile case occurring at a critical stage in British politics. There will definitely be an aftermath that will not fit into the bio article about Cox. w.carter-Talk 09:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• As a procedural note, the page has been moved to Death of Jo Cox. I'm not sure what should be done with the title of this AFD. Smurrayinchester 10:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge: for all the reasons given by Richhoncho MrStoofer (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Merge: All information can be easily integrated into the main biographical article. --Voyager (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: Note that the main article, Jo Cox, has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo_Cox&diff=725708330&oldid=724282236 expanded] roughly threefold since yesterday. I wouldn't call it long yet, but it's certainly developing. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep There's only Wikipedia:SIZESPLIT against, and this is a notable crime. Widefox; talk 10:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.