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 per WP:SNOW. Good faith nomination, but there is now significant coverage in media and now easily passes WP:GNG. That wasn't the case at nom - Alison talk 21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Brianna Ghey[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Killing of Brianna Ghey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not pass WP:GNG. It simply describes the murder of a trans girl but doesn't state why this particular murder is notable. People are killed each and every day. Why should this murder get an article while others do not? Seems very WP:ROUTINE to me. NoahTalk 02:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not able to withdraw since there are people wanting deletion/draftify, but I have moved to keep below since the article satisfies GNG at this point. NoahTalk 21:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seeing broad coverage, and seems prone to ongoing coverage as well. Per Sideswipe above, there seems to be that "additional significance" requested by WP:EVENTCRIT. DecafPotato (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What significance? It's a murder. It's getting some sensational news coverage. That's it as far as I can tell. If something actually does come up that rings the WP:N bell, I will happily reconsider. But I'm not seeing anything at the moment. And speculation about what might or might not come up, is just that. See also WP:CRYSTAL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also WP:RAPID – it seems odd to delete an article for a lack of sustained coverage when there has been zero opportunity for such coverage, as the event happened just yesterday. I'm not necessarily opposed to draftification or another similar WP:ATD, however. DecafPotato (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't create articles about a subject because it might become notable. This subject does not currently pass our guidelines for establishing notability and the article's creation was precipitous. I am quite willing to wait and see where things are at the end of the customary week for discussion. But as of right now, I stand by my delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was reading another article about violence against LGBTQ+ people just before commenting here, which is probably why I mixed up the UK and US cases.Melmann 20:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is getting enough widespread media coverage to make it notable, and plenty of other similarly prolific murders have their own pages. Snokalok (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt the good faith of the article creator. But there is no way this passes notability at present, unless you are prepared to completely ignore EVENTCRIT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I probably am going to do that at this stage, since the case for keeping the article is growing. Thankfully this kind of crime is rare in the UK, which in itself would make it notable. Add to that the criticism of the way the incident was reported, and the imposing of a no-fly zone over the crime scene due to the macabre interest of the media and others, and the case is already stronger. Also this case is already being used, and will no doubt continue to be used, to highlight violence against LGBTQ, and more specifically, trans people in the UK. We're far beyond the usual run-of-the-mill coverage that a stabbing death would generate. This is Paul (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article now passes GNG with the addition of information. NoahTalk 13:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This situation has had numerous politicians, including a former leader of the opposition, make statements on it. The fact that it has been picked up by both sides of the "trans debate", as much as I dislike that term, shows that it's considered notable for a variety of reasons by all parties involved. Leetinkoy (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others Estar8806 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen hundreds of "un-notable" articles that are not pending a deletion. It also seems like a very popular story in the UK Hungry403 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The ⬡ Bestagon T/C 13:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These tragic events, any events for that matter, would not have received the attention, and scrutiny offered in 2023, before the advent of digital connectivity before 1995. Social media is a mirror, and thus a reflection of "us" currently. Society has the technical ability to record History, literally, "in the making." Secondly, true, there are many events which "fall under the radar" of the scope of society's digitalized vision. Reason:the political ideologies manifest in our current society. Bentsince1963 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to editors making comments
This murder took place in the UK, not the USA. As such it is a rarity, not an everyday occurrence. --AlisonW (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why that matters, nowhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines does it say that the location of an event affects its suitability as an article topic. I've read WP:N front and back, an nowhere does it say that stories from the U.S. don't get articles, but stories from the U.K. do. --Jayron32 13:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hate crime murders are rarer in the UK, so probably deserve more attention. Leetinkoy (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can you point to the part of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies that say that? I'm struggling to find where it says that we give extra emphasis to hate crimes because they occur in the UK? Again, just trying to find it written down somewhere. I always want to be sure I keep within policy, so if that is a rule, I would just want to see it written down so I know that I'm supposed to base my vote on such information. --Jayron32 15:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the guidelines do say that anywhere. I understand the point being made - that it's the exceptional features of this case in its context that give it its notability - but we don't (and IMHO shouldn't) have a rule that specifically encourages us to balance/bias things because of their location alone. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I would encourage you not to use the RIGHTGREATWRONGS article to bludgeon discussion of sensitive and contentious topics. I see this done a lot at ITNC, as well - because a topic is emotive, and people report that emotional response (as reflected in RS) as part of their argument for its notability, others come in, in a very detached sort of way, to say 'oh, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs'. Arguably it isn't, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't report on those wrongs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reminding editors to stick to policy-based consensus building is not bludgeoning the discussion. For every emotive argument attempting to WP:RGW there is an equally emotive argument of opposite polarity. Would you be so charitable to somebody making an emotive argument on behalf of J. K. Rowling? I'd venture you would not.
Our job here is to stick to policy in all situations, and not just when it suits us. Melmann 22:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Stephen_Lawrence
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard
  4. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-64638653
The Murder of Sophie Lancaster is also relevant here - not just because of the circumstances of the case, but also because that article survived an AfD similar to this one, in large part due to the media coverage of the case and the wider issues surrounding it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think describing the understandable outcry, as reported in RS, at the murder of a teenage girl as 'hyped up media frenzy, moral panic or tribalism' is giving undue weight to a contrary position in which such events are seen as unimportant. Such a position would be highly biased, and unworthy of a responsible encyclopedia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptionality is the kind of thing we judge based on the volume and type of reliable source coverage, not on the arbitrary particulars of the story. If a story is covered in-depth and with sustained coverage in reliable sources in a way that indicates it is exceptional, then it it. We also don't discount such stories merely because we feel they are unexceptional... Wikipedia is based on what can be shown by evidence, not by what we wish the world were like. --Jayron32 13:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - I think people get confused (both ways round) between their feelings about the evidence, and what the evidence says about people's feelings. The former is mostly irrelevant; the latter can be highly relevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To both the above posters asking for it only to be considered if there is a change in the law - that's an incredibly high bar, a demand for a truly exceptional level of significance. The Murder of James Bulger, a very notable case in which the accused (and in that case convicted) perpetrators were minors, did not lead to a change in the law, but it would clearly be absurd for us not to cover it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We kind of do - that's exactly the point of AfD. And if this article were to be deleted now, and subsequently we decided that it was something that should be read about on Wikipedia, then it could be recreated. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2023 (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.
More