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 no consensus. There is no agreement between multiple editors on whether WP:BLP1E applies to this article, in particular, whether this is a biography. Let us try again in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ingrid Lyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to fail WP:GNG, as well. Further noting that since the article was nominated for deletion, the article creator has changed the name of the article, possibly in an attempt to circumvent 1E (see his comments on 1E below). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AGF, not circumvent but article improvement. According to that logic, the Boston, Massachusetts article should be deleted because the article was changed to Boston. The editor, WV, has previously been reported to ANI as a drama seeker and problematic editor and has been blocked before. I am sorry there is still daily misbehavior by WV. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: As of today, ten days after the murder, the news cycle on the murder has died to a slow crawl. Both Yahoo and Google searches find only a small smattering of updated news stories online (mostly local from the Seattle area), the rest are days old, in most cases, 4 days old and older. This shows how the incident is little more than a news story, certainly not an ongoing one, and that fact further bolsters the argument that the article is not encyclopedic, rather, a news item. This again brings up how Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. As such, the article has no enduring, encyclopedic value and should be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is reason to delete the President Rutherford Hayes article because no news stories on him for decades. No! Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, merge, or userfy - It is too soon to tell whether or not this case will make headline news. However, by userfying the article, it can be easily resurrected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since Lyne worked at Swedish Medical Center, this article can redirect to it. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's a horrible crime, however it's something that isn't necessarily notable. The crime is horrid, but not every crime, or every victim, is notable enough for an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I agree that we should mention her as a notable person or employee at Swedish Hospital in its article and give the explanation there. That, and/or mention the crime in Wikipedia's current events (daily news section) for the day it occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.153.31 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep because it meets the requirements even though this person is not famous - There are currently 20 citations in the article that come from 7 countries. A Google search show 134 citations from at least 10 countries. The nominator says it fails WP:GNG. Actually, it meets it by a wide margin. Specifically

Y "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Y "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

Y "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Y "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]

The usual Wikipedia custom is to rename the article "Murder of Ingrid Lyne". But that is not a deletion, merely a rename. If Ingrid Lyne were a TV episode, then Wikipedia custom is no question keep.

Wikipedia is not a vote so this careful analysis shows it should be a keep, even a speedy keep. If we don't want Wikipedia to be the porn star, video game, TV episode, high school, big murder website, then there needs to be a systemwide discussion. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I see articles, some noting unique information, without doing an exhaustive search from

 Belgium
 United States
 Brazil
 Australia
 India
 Romania
 United Kingdom
 Italy
 Canada
 Republic of China (Taiwan)
Sorry for the flags but that is a Wikipedia tradition. Whiskeymouth (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. All three show how this article is rightly being considered for deletion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not applicable. WP:1E is for a person. This is an event, Murder of Ingrid Lyne. Not news does not prohibit news. Otherwise the 2016 Brussels Airport bombing would be deleted because it is news. Too soon is not applicable because it meets GNG. Sorry, I do not make the rules. But we must follow them. Need to change the rules if you want your way. I will help you if you have a reasonable method to change Wikipedia.. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable. The article is a biography. Sorry, I don't make the rules, either, and policy is not only clear on this, but the article is very likely to be deleted. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Whiskeymouth. Caden ^cool 14:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whiskey's analysis is spot on. Over time, the article will get longer but for now the name change resolves the BLP1E issue and the numerous references and external links make it crystal clear that this topic has already garnered significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Whiskey has added a good deal of sourcing to the article (both local and international). Also added has been coverage from near and far of (a) this case as an archetype for the dangers of online dating and (b) coverage of public officials' reactions to the outpouring of "recycling" jokes. It's all getting significant coverage in reliable sources David in DC (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:David in DC, do consider moving this comment to the bottom of the page, or repeating it there (since someone has already responded to it here). This keeps the debate roughly chronological, very useful to subsequent and closing editors, who need to see how opinion in an AFD shifts as evidence is added, sources added, and article expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage does not an encyclopedia article make. Wikipedia is not a news source nor is it a website that regurgitates and compiles what news sources report. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, that is a truly bizarre argument. OF COURSE Wikipedia articles can be created based on "what news sources report".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Parsley Man (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG. NOTNEWS does not apply, as Wikipedia is based on news.BabbaQ (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on news" and WP:NOTNEWS is completely different. An article only stays on Wikipedia based on its enduring notability. It is too soon to determine how notable this murder is, considering how recent this is and there have been other run-of-the-mill murder-and-dismemberment cases in the recent past (like the San Diego case that I mention below). Parsley Man (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the reasons stated already; this is becoming a very heavily-covered story in the media and the trial will likely become another media-event. 68.19.7.65 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavily", how, exactly? Other than a few things trickling out in the local Seattle news as follow-up (and the wire services mirroring same) the story is pretty much widespread-dead for days now. Trial will probably be covered, but no one can know how big it will be, and we shouldn't speculate, and can't predict per WP:CRYSTAL. This is a news-story article that isn't likely to get any bigger or go much further. Hence, the reason why WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM, as policies, exist. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You know, a similar murder happened in my hometown of San Diego, where a woman was murdered and cut up, with the body parts being stuffed into a suitcase. Now, I would like to know why that doesn't have an article while this one does. Parsley Man (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because that case, beyond a few days' news cycle, wasn't any more notable than this one? (I assume you question was rhetorical) :-). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. Also, I would also like to add that the San Diego murder was also recent. Parsley Man (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think remember reading something about it a seek or so ago. See? Like most news stories of this kind: shocking but soon forgotten. Which brings me to another thought about why this article shouldn't exist:WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego murder has no article as it is not notable. Notamemorial bans memorial articles. This is not a memorial article. Are you trying to ban the 9-11 article because it memorializes it.....NOOOOO! For some reason, this event is covered in many countries, even non-English speaking countries while many murders are not. Maybe because it is notable by Wikipedia standards? Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or because it's gruesome and shocking news sells. clpo13_(talk) 05:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The San Diego murder was gruesome too. Why no article there? Also, Whiskeymouth, you're not making a very good case for yourself. Just because multiple countries are covering doesn't exactly mean it's that notable by Wikipedia standards. Parsley Man (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am surprised by how many articles there are on this. It's a nasty crime, but, at the risk of sounding insensitive, not particularly unusual as far as murders go. Dismemberment isn't an uncommon way to dispose of a body. clpo13_(talk) 05:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean lone victims who were dismembered? Or serial killers who dismember their victims? Parsley Man (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are fairly rare, the first one probably moreso (though many serial killers are unknown). But still many cases, in sheer numbers. All very uncommon next to billions of butchered breakfast animals, and all lacking the grisliness/gruesomeness/newsworthiness of human torsos where humans buy breakfast. The facts are sketchy, but that doesn't stop Sweeney Todd from being an article. Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the reasons stated already.
• Keep - Heavily covered in American national news + international sources per @Whiskeymouth:. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per rationale stated by Whiskeymouth. This article meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage in multiple local, national, and international publications and websites. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless it's turned into an article about the whole thing. Simply changing the title doesn't cut it. As the passive role, hers is smaller than her killer's, who doesn't deserve a bio from one event, either. Neither does the lead investigator, the judge, the witness, the juror, the bailiff, the reporter, the accomplice nor the sheriff. But there's potentially a place for facts on everyone here, so long as they're pertinent to the widely-but-not-deeply covered case. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your WP:HEY demand has been met, the article has in fact been moved to Murder of Ingrid Lyne, an article about a murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting closer. Still has a biography infobox, the lead still treats her as the topic and the Backgrounds section still skews the focus onto her. "Disappearance and death" subtitle implies the main title is still "Ingrid Lyne". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The guidance under WP:VICTIM seems pretty clear and on point. I'm also not seeing any lasting effect or wide-scale geographic impact that might qualify the murder under WP:EVENT. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: that WP:LASTING impact is not required, neither is "wide-scale geographic impact" (WP:GEOSCOPE). What is required is "significant or WP:INDEPTH coverage."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article fails WP:VICTIM but also WP:PORNSTAR and WP:POLITICIAN. This is because the article is about an event, not a victim, pornstar (people involved are a nurse and a homeless man), or politician (nurse and homeless man). It does qualify under event as evidenced by worldwide coverage, even in the Italian language press. Therefore, Keep. Again, I understand the frustration that some have but such frustration should be discussed systemwide in Wikipedia regarding what articles we want. If we want to no longer have murders and porn stars and video games, except for the truly historic murders and porn stars, then this is a valid discussion point but not an AFD. Whiskeymouth (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was going to pass this one by, it seemed merely to be an unusually macabre boyfriend murder, widely covered out of mere ghoulishness. But then I saw the bit in the article about internet dating sites. Googled it for myself, there really has been coverage of that angle, reported coverage in places far from the murder scene [1], and close to home [2]. Plus extent and intensity of coverage really do make it more than a routine news story. passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Event" I see editors arguing for keeping the article are doing so by claiming it is a notable "event". Wikipedia guidelines on the notability of an event can be found here and are as follows:
  • "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." This murder is not such and cannot be predicted to become such per WP:CRYSTAL.
  • "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections." This murder is not such in this case, either.
  • "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. However, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Does not qualify.
  • "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting." This murder does not qualify in this capacity, either. All reporting on this has been "in passing" and with the typical news-cycle, not in-depth.
  • "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." This murder has not received significant coverage other than a few mirror mentions from Seattle-area reporting and none of it qualifies as ongoing.
  • "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted...where a single story or press release is simply re-reported (often word-for-word) by news publications, or when reporters base their information on repeating news coverage from elsewhere (for example, "AP reported that ..."), this should only be counted as a single source for the purpose of determining notability." No significant national or international news coverage beyond a typical news-cycle. This murder fails here, as well.
  • "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." The coverage does not meet the above guidelines, just as the murder does not meet the above guidelines for WP:EVENT and cannot be considered such to justify having and keeping the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YThank you. This article actually meets two or three of your bullet points! Whiskeymouth (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, but please elaborate how you think it meets those points. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International coverage, more than a 24 hour news cycle but over a week and more, featured in Time (which is mentioned as a criteria). I realize that Wikipedia has articles like these so frustration should be directed at re-defining Wikipedia, not through an AFD of an article that meets the standards. I easily found more countries where there is coverage and the coverage is different. Whiskeymouth (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Whiskeymouth, BabbaQ and others. The online dating issue is a relevant angle and I think that it meets GNG based upon adequate news coverage from independent sources. Montanabw^(talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, textbook WP:BLP1E case. Perhaps this can be reassessed in six months to see if the "debate" over internet dating is still kicking along, but at the moment we have the usual flurry of routine coverage that most gruesome crimes get. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Look at the refs. On the other hand, I really regret getting involved in this page (with a casual renaming) at the beginning. It's worthy of a basic page, but it's not worthy enough for all this effort and dsicussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at best for now as the article certainly seems informative and sourced but I still question how solid and acceptable this is for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 23 April 2016 (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.