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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberta Estrada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article on a non-notable murderer of no international scope or importance except to those immediately affected. Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Thomas.macmillan 18:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This case reminds me of Andrea Yates, so by its substance it could be notable. If Newsweek reports on the incident, we could always start over. YechielMan 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This story has been covered by multiple reliable and independent sources including CNN, AP, and Reuters, because of the horror of a mother hanging her four children and herself, killing all but the youngest, who survived the attempted murder. It is not at all a run of the mill murder-suicide. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is it a true crime site. If this tragedy led to some lasting effect on society, such as funding for counseling and medication for mothers with post-partum depression, or if there are books, movies (yuck) or other tertiary coverage, then an article could be recreated. We may also think of the surviving child, whose name is given in the article, per the new provision in WP:BLP and WP:NOT which have been used to delete articles satisfying WP:N and WP:A on the ground (in WP:BLP) that "Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." and in WP:NOT "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Edison 19:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as appropriate documentation of the world. This has happened before--I notice the police chief said as much, and it is an important part of human psychopathology. There's a tendency to say that theyre not really important--they are isolated aberrations that will be soon forgotten. Rather, they are important indicators that will be remembered and form the proper subject of an encyclopedia.DGG 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's sufficient media coverage of the subject to meet WP:BIO. I've started a rewrite and am confident I can write an article in an NPOV fashion that is fair to the subject.--Chaser - T 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Any murder is horrendous and worldwide murder-suicide is all too common. Whilst 'Wikipedia is not paper' it saddens me to say to those concerned, that in this instance, it is not notable enough to keep.--Arthana 07:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tragic, but not particularly notable. WP is not a police blotter. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:17, 12 June 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.