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 Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AFD that has been visited by a number of single purpose IP's and near single-use IP's. Eg: 24.170.224.21 (talk · contribs), 75.208.31.63 (talk · contribs), 160.126.10.167 (talk · contribs). For those not used to Wikipedia, AFD is not a vote, but a forum to consider openly, whether an article meets or does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. In particular, the number of "keep/delete" presented, means less than the insight those views can add to the discussion. Some basic principles apply to AFD:

By default, if a matter has "significant mention in multiple reliable sources", it is presumed that it is notable (Wikipedia:Notability refers). This is a default only - many many things are in the news which do not merit an encyclopedia article.
In particular, not every murder does, even some fairly well known murders do not. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ("WP:NOT") sets some limits on this -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and especially, even events that gain news exposure and discussion of a transient or brief nature, are regularly not considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a list of everything that happens in the news.
Wikipedia does not measure prospective articles in terms of what is "interesting", what is "useful" (WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL refer), or even in terms of what would make some people feel better or worse. Likewise what a specific user of Wikipedia may have thought of it is also not relevant (WP:OR almost totally excludes editorial personal views and personal feelings as being an invalid basis for editorial decisions). It measures long term historical notability as an encyclopedia (WP:NOT refers), rather than say, social utility, news archival value, lessons to be learned, and the like.
Many murders make the media. But most lack lasting historical notability (WP:NOT#NEWS refers). As a sad fact of life, a killing is not notable per se. Even though many killings get significant media attention, it is usually transient and "just one of many". Sad but true.
The sole feature of this killing that is described as notable beyond the norm is that the victim was 1/ lured to their death, and 2/ it was the first such on Craigslist.

In this AFD, the majority of views concur that there is not significant notability for an encyclopedia article. There is one argument made to be considered, for a "keep", which is: "This story was featured front page on nearly every major news website in the U.S.A.; it is unique in that it sets a new precedent for craigslist, a worldwide website which was previously unaffected by events like this. It's the first recorded case of someone premeditating a murder set in motion via a phony help-wanted ad."

Murders where the victim is lured (by personal discussion, words posted online, false claim of money, or however) are in fact not uncommon, and are probably not especially unusual or notable per se. Essentially this argument makes the case that this murder is notable for being "the first to involve a lure by advertizing in significant venue/location X" where location X is a specific "worldwide website".

However to my mind this is not a compelling argument. (First murder where victim lured by advert in New York Times? First murder where victim lured by advert in Washington Post? First murder where victim lured by discussion on MySpace? First murder where victim lured by advert in Pravda? First murder where victim lured by advert in Monster.com?) In other words, the sole feature of this case that is unique is the mere venue or similar of the advert... and as a matter of communal norm, that just doesn't seem likely to confer notability.

In that regard, AFD discussion of more experienced users (ie after setting aside WP:SPA comments) also seems to support it's likely not to be notable, and also the incident has already (as noted) been listed in the main Craigslist.com article which is probably sufficient mention.

Commonsense application of policy, communal norms, and AFD consensus strongly agree.

Craigslist Killing

[edit]

Non-notable murder case, Wikipedia is not a news story Delete This is a Secret ^account 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would hardly call this "unique" and certainly not notable. —dustmite 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. I've never heard of this. --Astroview120mm 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion." --24.170.224.21 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable case. Doczilla 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it isn't notable. This is a case of someone using an online help-wanted ad to accomplish a pre-meditated murder. This article needs expanded, not deleted. --24.170.224.21 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard of it, it was mentioned on CNN, but same with hundreds and hundreds of murder cases every year, wikipedia isn't news. This is a Secret ^account 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow that kind of argument for keeping this article definitely shows why it should be deleted and why these anonymous IPs do not know anything about notability. .:DavuMaya:. 20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing here or in the article sets it above the thousands of other tragic events that don't qualify for encyclopedic entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doczilla (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Explain to me the difference between this and 2005_Dubbo_New_Years_Eve_Riot or Christina_Becker. What sets the New Years Eve Riot or Christina Becker "above the thousands of other tragic events that don't qualify for encyclopedic entries."? --24.170.224.21 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I prodded those two, if the prods get removed, I will AFD them. This is a Secret ^account 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Prod instructions usaully include notifying the original author of the impending deletion. hbdragon88 07:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not required, though. JuJube 11:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I already notified the author the moment I initiated the first deletion process over a week ago. .:DavuMaya:. 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't a breaking news source, and there is no indication this is a notable case. --Core desat 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story was featured front page on nearly every major news website in the U.S.A.; it is unique in that it sets a new precedent for craigslist, a worldwide website which was previously unaffected by events like this. It's the first recorded case of someone premeditating a murder set in motion via a phony help-wanted ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.31.63 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Summarized version already in the main article--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge w/ another craiglist article. 203.220.107.23 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Move/Merge with Katherine Ann Olson It saddens me that people would want to simply throw this out the window, or feel it's ok that this article be condensed into a one-line summary in another article. --160.126.10.167 13:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You can expand the one-liner if you want. Just keep it short (~5 sentences) so as not to overwhelm the article and sourced.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am tired of this anonymous IP. You don't know the family or friends you have nothing to be sad over. You don't live here. I would be sad if every heinous event on the news became WP content because people have some delusional need to encyclopedize it. Your viewpoint is respected but a lot of consensus was reached before you came into the fray. Do not make changes to the article or remove the deletion process until proper discussion is over. .:DavuMaya:. 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not wikinews. On the slim chance this is kept, it needs to be renamed, as the current title suggests Craigslist is somehow responsible for the murder. To put it another way, if the classified ad had been in the New York Times instead of Craigslist, we wouldn't title it "The New York Times Killing", would we? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tough one. Though there are 4 refs, on is craigs list and one is the police report (ie not an article to show notability, a listing which includes all crime and all crime is not notable). But 2 is multiple. Still, both are immediate news reports and thus I judge this is outside the intent of WP:NOTE.Obina 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Katherine Ann Olson. Wikipedia has a lot of articles about all kinds of murders, however, these are not listed under nicknames such as "Craigslist Killing" but under the name of the victim. Canjth 13:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm agreeable to that. --160.126.10.167 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agreeable to this action and not agreeable to anonymous IPs wreaking their own havoc. .:DavuMaya:. 21:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Article suitable for Wikinews, not Wikipedia -- WP:NOT#INFO. Protecting private individuals from harm Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm and Wikipedia:Content_forking Summary blurb already contained in Craigslist article no need to expound. I know for sure this article will hurt the family for a long time..:DavuMaya:. 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge with Craigslist and expand upon its entry there.-- I'm going back to my original stance on KEEP, see above, as well as my comments further down.24.170.224.21 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first instance using listings on craigslist as a method for commiting murder so its a notable event--Shimonnyman 08:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable event, WP:NOT a tabloid. Odedee 08:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be here as a warning/lesson. As a relative of Katherine, I say leave it here. Maybe merge it into Craigslist like mentioned above. --User:egawtry 12:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep per Shimonnyman and egawtry 203.221.239.39 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was posted on the Talk page of the article in question, but I feel it should be posted here as well. "AND if you looked into craigslist they have already shot down several attempts at modifying their article to include this event." I looked, and I couldn't find a single thing. Please point these out to me. All I saw was the entry's creation and the section being renamed. Why is this article notable? It is notable because it is a lesson on human nature. It shows how trusting people can be, and how others can abuse that trust. I recommend reading http://www.startribune.com/563/story/1525735.html it's a good read. Also, I've only seen one article on a similar event, and I feel it's worth mentioning: http://www.kxmc.com/News/179773.asp Before Katherine was murdered, had you heard of Craigslist being used for this sort of thing? Can you honestly say that this is not a notable event, and should be removed? --24.170.224.21 08:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NOT#NEWS "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." There are a substantial number of sources regarding this event. --24.170.224.21 09:18, 11 November 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.