Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter James Knight

: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) Erik9 (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

=[[Peter James Knight]]=

:{{la|Peter James Knight}} ([{{fullurl:Peter James Knight|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter James Knight}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Peter James Knight}})

This is a contested prod. It was prodded with the text: "Only claim to notability is the fact that this person committed a murder, which is (unfortunately) all too common. The only references are primary sources (court documents). Knight does not meet WP:N." I claim some authorship of the article. I say it is notable because he is the only murderer of abortion clinic staff in Australian history. Secondary sources are easy to find - see [http://www.google.com.au/search?q=peter+james+knight+abortion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Google]. I contend that Supreme Court judgments are in fact secondary sources (the evidence presented in court is the primary source, the judge and jury's synthesis of that evidence being secondary). Richard Cavell (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Murders are unfortunately all too common. Even if this was the first abortion-related murder in Australia, I don't see why that would make it especially notable. It could perhaps be a mention in an article on abortion-related violence (if we even have something like that). I disagree that Supreme Court judgments are secondary sources: they are the primary sources that secondary sources (like newspaper journalists) rely upon. As for the sources, the Google search provided by the nom gives many hits, if you restrain this to "Peter Knight" and abortion, it is already much less. Skimming through the top hits, I don't see any that meet WP:RS, just blogs, advocacy sites, etc. As the original prodder, I stick to my opinion that this person is not notable, but am willing to change my mind if good sources are presented, the Google search not being convincing at all. --Crusio (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, we do have an article at Anti-abortion violence. - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

::*That article has a section on violence outside of the US, mentioning cases in Canada and New Zealand and, yes, Australia. Everything worth knowing about this case is already included there. --Crusio (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep murders with special features are notable, especially considered that "He later stated that he intended to massacre everyone in the clinic, and progressively rid Melbourne of all its abortion clinics." This is one of them. There are actually over 50 of secondary sources in Google News archive (though some are duplicates) They include the LA Times and the London Evening Standard--thus showing international interest, not only national in Australia. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter James Knight||}}

  • Keep per WP:N/CA. Squeaks by #3 in the perp guidelines for being responsible for "Australia's first fatal abortion clinic shooting"([http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/24/news/mn-39628 LA Times]). Location (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2009 (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.