- 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. Although the notability of this event is fairly low, it has received somewhat more coverage over a longer period of time than a typical murder, and there is no clear consensus for the deletion of this article at this time. bd2412 T 19:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Murder of Janie Perrin (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)
While there is coverage of this crime, it doesn't rise to the level of notability, delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 22:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Weak delete I think it is usually a bad idea to create crime articles before a suspect has been apprehended, in most cases what establishes notability for these articles will involve the legal proceedings (unless the victim is a public figure, etc.) There is no way to know whether the case will satisfy notability at some time in the future, but with what is available now I agree that it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Seraphim System (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep (Creator) It looks to me as if the nom has misunderstood WP:NOTNEWS. If you read WP:NOTNEWS you see it prohibits original reporting, such as "first-hand news reports on breaking stories" and "routine...news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". Perrin was murdered in 1990 and the case has continued to attract significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources many years later. For example, in February 2010 an article was published in The Sydney Morning Herald about the continued investigation. Earlier, in 2007, the case was covered by the ABC. Other coverage pre-dating the internet is likely to be available in newspaper archives. The fact a significant monetary reward has been offered for information helping to solve the murder by the NSW Police suggests this is not a "routine" event. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No I believe he understood it correctly. Original reporting is only part of WP:NOTNEWS. The second part is news reports, which is what this would fall under: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" (emphasis mine). Just because a story is done on a cold case it doesn't make it notable. In the United States stories about cases like this would show up on America's Most Wanted or Dateline NBC years later in the interest of someone calling in with new information, that doesn't make them more notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is a lack of coverage when we are talking about scholarly literature. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Weak Keep. Seems this has lasting and significant cover which is what NCRIME requires.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep Two decades of coverage satisfies notability and ongoing coverage. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete – Even if it marginally passes GNG on its face, read in line with WP:EVENT it's difficult to see how this achieves the required level of notability for its own article. And the lack of significant coverage outside of news on the initial murder and a blip of coverage about an increased award means it still probably fails WP:NOTNEWS regardless (see WP:SUSTAINED). Kb.au (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete -- nn crime & does not meet WP:NCRIME and WP:SUSTAINED; no lasting signicance or societal impact. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Have you read WP:NCRIME? It says "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." Struggling to see how this crime fails that criteria...AusLondonder (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete for now. Does have longevity, but the coverage is not much. Only a small number of hits over the period and on particular "anniversaries", etc. There does not seem to be any scope to improve the article from further references. Suggest article might be revived if and when there are further developments in the case. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - Per this under-appreciated section of our notability guidelines for events: "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article". Such is the case here; the incident garnered brief spurts of news reports but never resulted in lasting ramifications, in-depth analysis, or sustained coverage. In other words, this literally does not have anything worth for inclusion in an encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Respectfully disagree. This unsolved crime has attracted attention for decades, including lengthy profile pieces in major newspapers. That is a prime example of in-depth and sustained coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per TheGracefulSlick. At the end of the day, even though it was reported nationally and still pops up on local news now and then, it's still just a single unsolved local crime, of which there are an untold number. Wikipedia is not a repository of such material. SunChaser (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep - per continued and lasting coverage throughout decades so still ongoing. Wp:NOTNEWS is thrown around everytime a article gets up for deletion, it however does not apply here just like the article creator states above. refernces are good as well. Several of the delete !votes above states that there are this article fails lasting and impact still this subject gets media updates on national level ever since 1990 up to todays date. So those statements are simply not correct.BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[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.