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 while there are many arguments put forth for both sides of the discussion neither proponents offer significantly strong arguments, the reference to missing white woman syndrome has been ascribed to this event but without any substancial facts even if it was/is that isnt a reason for deletion(see:WP:DISCUSSAFD). Policy reasons put forth WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NotNewspaper are one in the same they refer to 4 points each are; 1, Journalism first hand reporting(nope), 2. News Reports enduring notability of people and events, enduring isnt defined in encyclopeadic as that is subjective measure that cant be defined. Point 3 Who's who coverage about an individual involved may not be notable should be limited to the article about the event, 4th point not a diary(nope). Considering the points 1, 4 definately arent the basis of this article. enduring is undefined, notability lets discount ABC coverage(presumed COI) the coverage is significant, reported on two continents and its independent of the subject. Pt4 cover the event not the person if the person isnt otherwise notable this artilce does that. To counter the notnews arguments the policy WP:N/CA sums this article up Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. 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. Further keep arguements were of the media coverage, other events supported by media coverage of those events therefore on balance the discussions weight is one of keeping the article. Gnan garra 08:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: While closing as keep I'm mindful on the issue of how "enduring" is defined and what that means to this article which is unresolved by both this discussion and policy. Gnan garra 08:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of this article, "Murder victim Meagher may be wiped from Wikipedia" from The Sydney Morning Herald, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: ((subst:spa|username)) or ((subst:canvassed|username))

Death of Jill Meagher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, we don't generally include articles on noteworthy but temporal events... not unless they have lasting influence or they impact society over the long term. This is still fairly recent, so web searches tend to show primarily news updates on the unfolding situation, rather than significant sources that can demonstrate long-term importance. Powers ^T 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~. Coverage more substantial than a typical murder (which I would hesitantly ascribe to missing white woman syndrome), but no real in-depth analysis or wider impact. Protest turnout of 30,000 people (which the article doesn't mention) makes me reluctant to delete. Edit: Leaning towards keep considering the existence of articles like this. IgnorantArmies – 06:15, Saturday January 5, 2013 (UTC)
~~Not sure~~Delete Is there an equivalent of missing white woman syndrome for members of the media? One reason this case got more attention than usual was that she worked for the ABC. Inevitably they gave it lots of coverage, and my impression was that it increased coverage in other media outlets too, more than your average Joe (or Joanna) would have received. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified my position after further thought. Jill Meagher had no public profile before her unfortunate demise. If this was a rape/murder, it could have been a rape and murder of anybody. There is no lasting encyclopaedic significance in the fact that she was the victim. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". The case do have headings in major newspaper, in at least two countries. For what matter the case is known, is not important, as the coverage itself is the criteria for notability. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we ignore the obvious conflict of interest among the media? HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is misleading to link to conflict of interest in this debate, as I can't see any obvious signs of users neglecting NPOV have had an inpact of this article. The criteria is significant coverage of media. Grrahnbahr (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Grrahnbahr - WP:COI is completely irrelevant to the media's coverage of the case. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom has it right. This is a crime involving a non-notable person. Simply having coverage by outlets in different countries isn't the intent of "international coverage". This is a regular crime against a non-notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a murder of an journalist working in a foreign country. It is not regular at all, and is covered by major media in at least two contries. According to the criterias, it is no demand for a notable victim, as the case itself could reach notability by significant media coverage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. She was non-notable before her death, journalist or not, and the fact that it was covered by media anywhere won't absolve her from being covered only because she was a murder victim. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Niteshift, she was not a journalist merely an employee. and even if she was, it adds absolutely nothing to notability about her death. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a regular crime" - but certainly not a regular case. There is plenty about the case which is not "regular", as mentioned elsewhere in the AfD. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was not a high profile media personality, so I don't think the media COI is relevant. The case is notable for the impact that social media had on both the search for her, the identification of and abuse towards the accused and it will continue and increase during the upcoming trial. There was an article about it just the other day. It will probably end up changing some laws over what can and can't be said online. The-Pope (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She may not have been a high profile personality before her death, but did you listen to or watch any of the ABC coverage at the time? It was massive, obviously because she was one of theirs. It's unlikely to change any laws, because there's no point bringing in unenforceable ones. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not change the law, but articles like this show that it is more than your usual missing person/murder case. The-Pope (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing anything but a tragic death that has received respectful attention "worldwide". The article is WP:NOTNEWS right now. Naturally, if the story gets attention that leads to changes in the law, the article should appear on Wikipedia. I didn't see a story about the impact of social media. Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that it was a case of missing white woman syndrome (I do suspect that the volume of coverage this got was largely due to the fact she worked in the media), but it still got massive amounts of press over a sustained length of time. Definitely a step above your ordinary violent crime in the notability stakes. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: This was a high profile incident. The article is deserving of development to reflect this. Afterwriting (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing outside of WP:ROUTINE suggests any real notability. WP:NOTNEWS, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VICTIM. unfortunate death, that garnered a lot of coverage at the time, but it really is just another murder. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no long term notability Greglocock (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, not everything that gets some media attention is automatically worthy of an article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "no long term notability" = then, what's this?. This murder happened 4 months ago, and the media is still harping on about it. That's called WP:SIGCOV. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because the court case for the accused started 4 months after. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still coverage over long periods of time. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mention 4 months later isn't "long term notability". When did 4 months become "long term". The essay WP:RECENTISM suggests a 10 year test. Even if we use a 5 year test, 4 months is hardly a long time. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that looks like a 'mention', then some people have really high expectations. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Do you really want to quibble over the use of "mention"? Or maybe we should focus on the fact that 4 months is hardly "enduring". Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the trial is going to be finished tomorrow? or the news outlets will stop after 4 months? nope. Is it impossible to wait a few more months, to get a clear view as to whether or not this article is notable? definately not. Now, keeping in mind WP:BLUDGEON, I think that's about it on my part. — MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was an murder that had a deep and significant impact on the city where the victim was murdered. It galvanised a response from males and females alike - there was a march of thousands down the street where she was snatched. There was also a marked public reaction in Ireland, where she hailed from. Notability here isn't dependent on the victim's profile, but the public reaction - and this was / is notable. Colon el Tom 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a extremely significant event in Melbourne and Australia that has had continued reactions since. Rallies of 30,000 people are illustrative of this. MvjsTalking 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this was an important story in both Brunswick in Melbourne history. The impact of social networking was of importance in this case and it is something that should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.124.37 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What happened to her wasn't extraordinary, but the public outcry, the peace march, and the way it revived Reclaim the Night in Melbourne and other Australian cities was historic. Never before in Australia has the rape and murder of a woman created such a reaction. Interestingly, it preceded the protests in India about the student who was violently raped on a bus. It may be a coincidence, but it feels like these events are linked, and we as a society aren't sitting back and letting violence towards women be accepted as normal or inevitable.

As for the cynical "white woman syndrome" comments, and to those saying it's because she was working for the abc that she got all the media coverage, well there might be some truth in this, but there are many white women who are raped and murdered in Australian Cities every year, and they don't get this kind of attention. I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons why the public were so affected by this story; 1. the CCTV footage of a missing woman in the company of a strange man allowed us all to play 'detective,' 2. it happened in Brunswick, a neighbourhood which a lot of people have a personal connection to, being a popular place to go out, as well as a place where a lot of students live, 3. Her body was found, and the murderer was charged within a short space of time; so the interest had built up and then the discovery resulted in strong emotions. Just as the police raid on the Stonewall hotel that sparked the LGBT rights revolution wasn't particularly notable at the time, neither was Jill Meagher's rape and murder, but because it catalysed change, The Stonewall Riots have a place in Wikipedia. Time will tell whether the momentum generated at the time of the march builds into a movement, or becomes a distant memory.

User:doloresdaphneTalking 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doloresdaphne (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment: I agree with the comments of User:doloresdaphne above. Whether we think the reasons for it are fair or equitable, the public reaction to this event (peace march, social media) was huge. The case in India that doloresdaphne refers to is the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, which has extensive coverage on wikipedia - and having occurred 16 December 2012, is more recent than this event. Format (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion has been reported in The Age newspaper in Australia: Murder victim Meagher may be wiped from Wikipedia. St Anselm (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The media coverage on this case was substantial. You can argue about whether that media coverage was proportionate or not, and what might have influenced it, but I don't think that's a relevant consideration. The "conflict of interest" policy refers to conflicts of interest in WP editors, not whether the media might have had personal motives for turning a case into such a big news story - extent of news coverage is relevant for notability, the reasons behind that news coverage are irrelevant. SJK (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood romances, babies, and their strange names get an awful lot of media coverage too. You will find mention of them hard to find in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG and therefore the WP:Notability guideline. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, see WP:NotNewspaper, which is a part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT. I haven't seen any verifiable evidence from reliable sources that this is any more than a quickly forgotten event, or that society has changed, or that laws will change. Unscintillating (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No long term notability. The reason this case gained so much public attention was the vivid CCTV footage that was captured immediately prior to her demise and that was extensively shown in the media. I contend that had the last known movements of the deceased prior to her disappareance not been captured by CCTV, there would not have been such public attention to it. I cannnot see how the deceased is really any different to any other missing person who is subsequently found to be dead and that a criminal trial ensures following such discovery. The deceased would not have been in the public eye if not for the sensation of the events surrounding her death, and for that reason I contend that she be deemed unsuitable to have a page devoted to her in Wikipedia. May she rest in peace and may her family adjust to her untimely passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrostyInOz (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— FrostyInOz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is about an event that touched many people, not only because of the person (whom most of us didn't know) but because of the issues that her death brought to prominence (which all of us should know). Jill Meagher's ABC colleagues used social media effectively to bring attention to the case, in a way we haven't seen before, and it grew from there. As we got to know more about what happened that night, the dangers of doing something that so many of us have done without a second thought (walking home from the pub) became very clear. Jill Meagher's broader legacy will be to remind us of that, which is why the article on her disappearance should not be deleted but enhanced with detail and context. NotherAussie (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there is plenty of precedent for WP articles on newsworthy Australian murder cases. This one is not as notable as some, but the use of social media and CCTV has certainly added to it. I say keep for now. (Disclosure: alerted to this by news article, but I've participated in plenty of AfD discussions in the past). Adpete (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The impact of the crime on the public is notable and ongoing. This was reflected by the media response locally and worldwide. The legal and political response regarding use of social media and impacts on the legal system are also notable with signficant comments made by Police and the Victorian Premier. While Jill Meagher may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) notable person requirements, the murder event and subsequent response is notable. As per WP:N/CA don't rush to deletion. Peter Campbell 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hugely notable. Massive public reaction, big changes in attitudes to crime and sentencing for violent offenders as a direct result of this murder, which will be remembered for a very long time. I am astonished that there is even a question about this. Simply, deleting this would be absurd.

The reasons for the huge public concern are irrelevant. The fact of it is what matters. Tannin (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'"Keep'". This event galvanised women and men across Melbourne and Australia against violence against women. In addition to the 30,000 - strong march down Sydney Rd not long after Jill's death, attendances at White Ribbon Day events a couple of months after her death were many times larger than in previous years. Media and community discussion about violence against women in this country is now an open and common discussion as never before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnzacFrank (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This event was more than simply the death of an ordinary Australian citizen, it was a highly publicized murder of a journalist known to many. For decades to come, when a woman goes missing in Melbourne, many will reflect on such a highly publicized incident. It has become a part of Australian history and Australian history has a place on Wikipedia. The deceased was a journalist and was widely known, the nature of the article is of little threat to anyone's privacy. The article exhibits to Australian society, a prime example of the prevalence of violence against women in the society of the time. It has become a significant historical event. Reasons for keeping this page far outweigh it's deletion. NacIVY (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you have evidence to show that Jill Meagher was widely known prior to her disappearance and death, please do provide it. I've seen nothing to suggest this. Colon el Tom 00:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From my personal experience living nearby as well as what I have read in the media and on blogs, this incident made significant and lasting impacts on: perceptions of safety in Melbourne (especially for women), risk of social media commentary prejudicing a fair trial and wider debate on appropriate sentencing for similar crimes. lheydon (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this was a national media conversation about women's rights and safety in Australia equivalent at a national level to the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. It is emphatically not just a "missing white woman" syndrome - thousands of people marched in Melbourne in a campaign to highlight the matter. Slac speak up! 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This was an appalling nomination by an American editor, who clearly failed to make even the most rudimentary effort to assess the significance of this event in Australia. Now it has led to the humiliation of Wikipedia in the Australian media. Hope you're feeling proud of yourselves. The philosophy of deletionism is a scourge on this project. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This tragic murder changed a number of things. 1. It could have been "any" woman throughout Australia (not just Melbourne, I am from Sydney)- most women have walked 400 m in a supposedly busy and safe area late at night. It changed women's behaviour. 2. CCTV Camera - this helped solve the case with its widespread coverage. Ironically, we understand we are 'safer' because of such cameras' omnipresence, which in turn may or may not deter future attacks. 3. The unprecedented march of thousands in Melbourne cemented the first point. A tragedy, it lives on our minds and hearts and has touched and shaped society. [[User:Coastien| 27 January 2013 124.179.58.153 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - While random rape and murder by an unknown assailant may be common in other countries, it is a rare occurrence in Australia. This was a societal shock to the Australian population because (1) Jill was not attacked by a relative or acquaintance, and there was no pre-planning or other motivation, (2) the assailant was known to Police, and while Australians historically hold a relatively dim view of uniformed authority, there is a general feeling that the system keeps us safe and (3) the assailant had approached other women previously, but due to (2), had not been reported. This is an open wound in the Australia psyche, and the societal ramifications have yet to be fully appreciated. It is therefore premature to delete this as being insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.10.115 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - The crime gained immense national coverage and led to significant media coverage on the issue of CCTV and women's safety. Qualifies per WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. BlackCab (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only (semi-)valid pretext to have this article is the extensive media coverage, but this coverage is just as unwarranted. The media often create such a feedback loop when one of them is concerned (which in this case is also multiplied by the MWWS factor, without a doubt). There is no point to perpetuate this cycle. With all due respect, Jill is not any more important or notable than any other person murdered in a similar way (which happens rather regularly, even in Australia). Sergey Khantsis (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If extensive media coverage is no longer an indicator of notability, then what on earth is? Since when did we get to decide if media coverage is "warranted" or not? Manning (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lot of SPA's are muddying the water here. The evening news, by its very definition, is national coverage - the primary claim made for notability, yet not all national news stories are worthy of an encyclopedia article. The reality is, people are not going to be looking up this story years from now, and in the unlikely event I'm mistaken, the article can be written then. In the meantime, the appropriate forum for these story is Wikinews. Rklawton (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to say keep on this one. A rally of thousands of people down a major road in Melbourne takes this well outside the realm of "just another death" - even if some are unhappy that this was potentially driven by "missing white woman syndrome", that is now just a part of the story (though arguably not an NPOV one). The march and gathering was an unprecendented response in Australia and received wide coverage... like it or not, it's a notable event. --Rob.au (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - The scale of community response to this event is notable in Melbourne's history. Tens of thousands of people walked along Sydney Road in a "Peace March" after the murder of Jill Meagher. See: http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/national/peace-march-for-jill-meagher-20120930-26ta3.html Craig Rowley (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all those locals triggered by the article in The Age to now tell us how important this really is because such and such happened, how about you get cracking with your editing and add some well sourced words on such and such to the article? Right now, the article doesn't deserve to be kept. And I'm from Melbourne too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI have already edited parts of the article as it was in dire need of some attention, yes. It is pretty comprehensively connected to the rest of Wikipedpia now, and I have polished some bits and added in more sources. However I have been reluctant to go out of my way on some parts of the story, as the trial starts soon, and I would rather not risk jeopardising it. Fairly sure there will be lots coming out of the trial reports to update the article with. NotherAussie (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Victorian Premier has suggested law reform might be necessary to avoid social media coverage of this event. If such reform is legislated, then this event will not only have been "worthy of notice" by the Victorian Premier, but also by the Victorian Parliament. It will have been an event that directly led to significant law reform in Victoria. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/transcripts/5044-full-transcript-of-premier-ted-baillieus-interview-on-774-abc-melbourne-mornings-with-jon-faine-01-october-2012.html Craig Rowley (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge now I don't know how this could be done though, but certainly the subject being an incident in [Brunswick], and the only reason why the article became notable is because she worked in the media and it was covered by her media colleagues - but the quality and caliber of the media reporters is quite notable! If she was a cashier at the local supermarket then it wouldn't have got an ounce of the media coverage that it did. That said, it raised a lot of awareness of [rape] and victims of rape. The reasoning behind my idea here is that the impact that the media did was important in bringing the awareness to the Australian community. On the other hand - the deletionists should go and check out the thousands of horses that are deemed to be "notable" included in Wikipedia after only winning a minor race. Should they all continue to be listed, then this article should also be a keep as it has made an astounding impact on a community and country and raised unprecedented awareness of the security and safety of women in this community. Thanks for reading.Alvin M. (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment a "rally" of any amount of people does not make for notability. Each week there are rallies of all kinds and causes all over the world and they are not noted in Wikipedia. I think the people who are highlighting the rally part and not the end effect - ie parliamentary change or similar, should consider the fact that this in itself is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmusica1 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I would agree that a rally in and of itself does not amount to notability. My earlier comment refers to this rally in context. A rally of this size and of this kind is not a normal response in this environment and as the commentor below notes, it is only partially indicactive of why this occurance has become notable. -- Rob.au (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sure, rallies happen all the time and this rally is only part of the story, but it examplifies all of it. People marched to remember Jill Meagher and they marched to highlight unacceptably high levels of violence against women. If one woman's disappearance and death has that influence, it is a notable event. To the editors who are concerned that we will suddenly experience a spate of articles about ordinary people being killed: let's deal with that when / if it happens.NotherAussie (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creepier thing about this all is that Adam Ernest Bailey will likely get a Wikipedia article written - if he hasn't already got one written already! Alvin M. (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me guessing that you probably meant Adrian Ernest Bayley, the man charged with the rape and murder of Meagher. What makes you think he would get an article? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the others this would not have been a news item if she were not in the Media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.6.207 (talk • contribs)

— 211.27.6.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most notable murders in Australia in recent times. --58.178.161.100 (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This event is not temporal as this event caused a 30,000 female and male march for a female victim.

Similar events that are not temporal and remain in Australian cultural history are Juanita Nielsen (4 July 1975), Karmein Chan (13 April 1991), Caroline Byrne (8 June 1995), Jeanette O'Keefe (2 January 2001), Siriyakorn 'Bung' Siriboon (2 June 2011) and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiger3970 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been a rape and murder of anybody. She was just an average person, but as she worked for the media, the ABC made sure her story was picked up. I do not mind if we keep it, but in the future, we should also be allowed to keep all other wikis on everyday murders. Kelly2357 (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet 30,000 people haven't turned out on the streets of Melbourne in response to any other "everyday murder" (which with only 173 homicides in Victoria in 2011/12 would be better described as an "every second day or so murder"). The Victorian Premier has since expressed a potential to reform the law as a result of the notable scale of interest and thus potential to jeopardise the trial. It is the scale of public and government reaction to the event that makes it a significant event, and thus a topic that is notable, regardless of the occupation of the victim. Craig Rowley (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Kelly2357. This isn't an everyday murder, which the article itself makes clear. Meanwhile, wikipedia does have substantial articles on other (non-everyday) crimes such as (to pick two I have recently edited) the Murder of Anni Dewani and the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, so I'm not sure what your point is. Format (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A notable murder that has led to substantial and likely long-lasting societal impact; not enough time has passed to fairly judge whether WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies (though what constitutes "enough time" is a very vague criterion and I'd argue that enough time has passed to exempt this article), but WP:SIGCOV has been more than adequately addressed and so the article should remain. If the article were simply about Jill Meagher herself, then WP:Notability isn't addressed and I would vote for deletion, but since the article is about the event of her death and its coverage, my vote is a strong keep. Thefamouseccles (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per comments by Colonel Tom, Coastien and doloresdaphne, among others. There were a number of reasons for public interest in the case - including the CCTV footage and that she was taken from Brunswick. I'm sure that Missing white woman syndrome was one factor in the attention it received, but nonetheless it has received that attention, and a strong continuing interest. As someone living in Melbourne and having heard a lot about the case and knowing about the march, I consider the deletion an absurd suggestion that shouldn't have been made. If someone doesn't understand a topic, they should consider suggesting the deletion on the talk page before putting it to AfD. This death is a sensitive issue, and this AfD is not only inappropriate but makes Wikipedia look bad - I hope it can be quickly closed. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This AfD has been open for 22 days, and there's no sign of consensus for deletion. It's about time to close it, and focus on improving the article. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The reactions to Jill Meagher's disappearance was unprecedented in Australia. The combination of public action and social media was exceptional. My post for Global Voices Online gives some of the impact: Australia: Social Media’s Search for Missing Woman "This week Melbourne has seen what is perhaps its biggest and its saddest social media campaign following the disappearance and alleged rape and murder of Jill Meagher." Too important to delete when living people of much less significance remain. 30,000 people who took to the streets can't be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Rennie (talk • contribs) 2013-01-27T07:23:59

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.