Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schenecker double homicide

: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. The consensus is that this double homicide has received enough on-going coverage that it meets the criteria for inclusion, and that it is not a trivial event PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Schenecker double homicide]]=

:{{la|Schenecker double homicide}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Schenecker double homicide}})

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Sadly we live in a world where crimes like these are not out of the ordinary. This article is based entirely upon routine news reporting and doesn't demonstrate the lasting significance or notability of this crime. In my view, the time of creation was/is too close to the event to be adequately able to judge WP:INDEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE as of yet. I say this article should be deleted now without prejudice for re-creation if notability can later be assertained. 4meter4 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:Why this deletion frenzy?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment; I ummmed and ahhed over writing the article in the first place (after being prompted) and could be convinced that it is simply routine news. On the other hand, the incident has garnered national coverage and fairly deep analysis/interest, specifically as the mother just seems to have snapped and killed her children, definitely not a common crime. At the moment I feel the incident is just on the right side of the notability border --Errant (chat!) 07:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:In what way do you feel this subject meets the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events)?4meter4 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::Honest answer; I can't exactly bring myself to vote to delete an article I created. On balance I suspect you are right, on the other hand the sources were there and I got prompted to create it. There are interesting elements to the case which might develop. I swapped "weak keep" to "comment" just for balance. Not going to resist community consensus to delete --Errant (chat!) 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::I suggest you userfy this article. If the case becomes notable later you can always move this back into article space with appropriate updates. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. I cannot see the significance or notability of this event. True, there are plenty of reliable news sources, but with all the hype it's gotten in the media, that's to be expected. What I don't see is why this murder, as opposed to the thousands of similar murders, merits its own article. I agree with the nominator that it is simply just too soon after the event to determine the long-term notability of the event. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::Why this deletion frenzy? you yourself points out many aspects that is making this article into a Keep article, but you still makes it to delete? Strange to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::: I have no idea what you are refering to as a "deletion frenzy", but feel free to call me a deletionist if you like. I personally don't believe Wikipedia should have an article about every newsworthy event that happens in the world. Newsworth ≠ notable. Just because the media makes a bit deal about a sensational murder doesn't mean that it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Sure, it has plenty of sources, but is it notable in the long run?

::: Of course, should this case have long-term ramifications in terms of law, policy, copy-cat killings, forensic science (etc), then I would say it was notable. The problem with the media is that it's all about selling newspapers -- it is in their best interests to perpetuate a sensational story. As of right now, this event is not notable enough to merit its own article. It may in the future. And, if it does merit an article in the future, then it should be written. Not now. WP:CRYSTAL. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep - All over the news. Is on the right side of the notability border. Has as ErrantX states been highly publizied and has alot of facts that isnt pointing toward your every day kind of crime.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:It seem to be the usual," we cant determine the long term notability" but as usual the nominatior always seem to have the knowledge about the articles long term notability. This is simply a guessing game which can not be evaluated until a future date, thats why it better to keep than to delete.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::Fox News just now reported on Julie Scheneckers case that she had pleaded not guilty to the crimes. Which means a lengthy trial and also a very possible death sentence which will make her just the second woman on Floridas death row. Just another of many points that makes me say Keep for this article. Mukkakukaku states that he/she doesnt see any reason for why this particular murder is different, its different because it has gained world wide attention. In my country on the other side of the globe this particular case has been mutch in the media. also the fact that she is facing death row as only the second woman on it makes this case notable, also the facts surrounding the case and the fact that mothers murdering their on kids like this is very unusual, plus death letter and comments from Julie Schenecker puts this case above the general murder investigations and cases. Thats my final word on this strange Afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Babbq, read what I said about "recreation without prejudice". This is a "guessing game" as you call it. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for guessing games. Read WP:CRYSTAL. The only thing to do here is delete. Also, your arguements all seemed to be based on your own personal interest and not wikipedia notability policy. I suggest you read/familiarize yourself with the relevant policies before voting in AFD discussions.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

::::Well, opinion is based on the fact that I am 100% certain that this article is notable. And that the Deletionists are grasping for straws in arguments for deletion. I care to differ the only thing that is right to do here is to Keep and let time run its course. Why this deletion frenzy..? Just asking. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - for the context here, the AfD arose after I queried the hook that was being used for the potential DYK submission of this article. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion myself, but I can see there are reasonable arguments in favour of deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - Enough sources to provide a deep coverage of the event so far. Also national and international coverage.--195.84.40.131 (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC) — 195.84.40.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This is not a trivial event. There are a wide range of sources. Coverage is national. Coverage has been sustained for more than two weeks. This meets several of the criteria in WP:EVENT. The incident has not attracted international coverage in the main reliable sources, though has been picked up by various minor news agencies and sources, such as [http://www.golf-talk.co.uk/news/julie-powers-schenecker-kids-murdered-by-mad-mom/124511555 UK] and [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/50-year-old-mom-julie-powers-schenecker-charged-of-murdering-her-own-children_100495477.html India]. People have commented that there is a feeling that this AfD has been a bit hasty. I understand the concern that Wikipedia does not report every trivial news item, and it is appropriate that an eye is kept on recent news related articles to ensure trivial articles are not created; however, when a news item gets the sustained depth and spread of coverage that this one has, then it is unlikely to be trivial, and at the very least, time should be given to see how things develop before bringing such news items to AfD. SilkTork *YES! 09:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

:You have it backwords SilkTork. WP:Crystal would suggest that time should have been taken before creating the article in the first place. Keeping something because it may prove notable later sets a bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

::We have so many guidelines that it is quite common for them to be misquoted or misunderstood - I have frequently struggled with some guidelines and got it wrong. WP:Crystal is a guideline about forthcoming events, it does not apply to events that have already occurred. The murder actually happened, and there were sources on it by the time the article was created. The reasons why an article may be brought to deletion are covered in WP:DEL#REASON, which links to WP:NOT which contains both WP:Crystal and WP:NOTNEWS. Crystal doesn't apply here, but NotNews does, and NotNews is expanded upon in detail in WP:EVENT which attempts to clarify the wooly areas of news coverage of events. There is a sliding scale. We are aware that some news items are notable. And some are WP:LOCAL or trivial. WP:EVENT makes a good attempt at clarifying the point at which we judge when an event is not trivial and local and when it becomes significant. This event, as I indicated above, meets several of the criteria in WP:EVENT because coverage is in depth, diverse, and reflective, with national and international coverage (I did an incorrect search initially - there are major news reports in the UK - [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Julie+Schenecker+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en-GB___GB379#q=Julie+Schenecker&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=LKh&rlz=1R1GGLL_en-GB___GB379&prmd=ivnsuo&source=lnt&tbs=ctr:countryUK|countryGB&cr=countryUK|countryGB&sa=X&ei=SflcTbHTNcSAhAeJxfipCA&ved=0CAcQpwUoAQ&fp=2e26c5153a2f6c6]). I think your point is that at the time the article was nominated for deletion there was not enough coverage to judge notability. Well, it was nominated [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schenecker_double_homicide&oldid=414210375 16 Feb] when substantial coverage had already been established, and there were a number of reliable sources in the article. Even if it had been nominated on the first day the article had been created, it would have been questionable because at that point the story had reached international levels and coverage was more substantial than the average murder. The UK doesn't normally get reports on murders in America. This AfD is useful as indicating when a news item is newsworthy. Sustained, in depth international coverage indicates notability. This news item has sustained, in depth international coverage which includes [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/opinion/12ellison.html?_r=2&%3Bsrc=tptw significant opinion and analysis]. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 17 February 2011 (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.