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. Essentially, additional sources were supplied by the "keep" side, that were not adequately rebuked by the "delete" side. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Margaret and Seana Tapp[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Event/person is not a topic of enduring notability, nor is it a topic of historical significance. AldezD (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*coughs*. Non-notable crimes don't get an extensive article thirty-four years later. You are as bad as User:TheLongTone. There's also this from 2008, this from 2010. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment: First, you do realize you are quoting a source that says “but the Tapp double murder was never famous...”, right? More to the point, dunno about Strinistan, but around here if something is sourced to Murdochiana, it better be the WSJ. Qwirkle (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: This AfD is tainted because AldezD only found out about the article because he is clearly watching my edits which is totally out of line'. God, AldezD must be on Mescaline if he thinks watching my edits is OK. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Local news stories do not meet WP:SIGCOV for the crime that is the subject of this AFD. The 2008 link is about evidence mishandling. It is not WP:SIGCOV nor does it meet WP:N guidelines for the crime itself. The 2010 link states "But the Tapp double murder was never famous...Nothing has changed that in a quarter century." AldezD (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment*: I'm sorry. As MarnetteD noted elsewhere, I want to give victims like Margaret and Seana a voice because they deserve better than faded memories and chapters in true crime books. I'm just trying to do the right thing. I'm not "obsessed with dead girls" because it isn't my fault that most disappearances and murders that makes the headlines are girls and women. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTSOAPBOX address why these are not valid reasons for keep. AldezD (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On-going coverage from 1984 (I presume - need news archive) to 2018 - and not in a single spurt - meets WP:GNG/WP:NCRIME.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7].Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—As noted above, these links are not WP:SIGCOV of the crime. WP:NCRIME states "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines" (referring to WP:EVENT). The links in this discussion do not meet criteria in WP:EVENT.
  - The first link is unviewable.
  - The second link is about evidence mishandling, as is the topic of the source. Mentioning the crime twice in one paragraph of a 451-page book is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
  - The fourth link is about evidence mishandling. It is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
  - The fifth link is a repost of a 2008 story already linked above and is about evidence mishandling. It is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
  - The sixth link is a stub news article about one television viewer calling a station that aired a cold case segment on the article subject and mentions multiple cold cases. It is not SIGCOV of the crime itself.
  - The seventh link is a repost of the 2010 story already linked above and directly states "But the Tapp double murder was never famous...Nothing has changed that in a quarter century."
  - The third link is about the case and investigative activity subsequent to the murders. But again, noting the above links are not SIGCOV, a single news story reviewing events of the case and that new evidence was (at the time) recently found in a cold case 30 years after the murders took place is not criteria that meets WP:EVENT/WP:NCRIME. This topic fails all guidelines presented in this discussion.

AldezD (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. Icewhiz is correct about the sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG says that high profile cases can gain notability, but again and again the sources directly say the opposite. adding a cite that is literally a footnote doesn’t suggest that something deserves an article, it suggests it deserves a footnote, an maybe elsewhere. Qwirkle (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle AldezD only found out about the Tapp's article by watching my recent edits. He should be reprimanded for that as it is no different in spirit from legal threats which is a bannable offence here. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve stated this at excessive length, here and elsewhere. Even if it is true, it doesn’t change the fact that this crime might not need its own article. Qwirkle (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Paul sweetie, I would not have come across this entirely unremarkable murder unless you had namechecked me. Don't hold grudges, and don't be paranoid; as I've told you, checking out a dubious editor's history is a sensible thing to do Seriously, the only slender reason for asserting notability is that a news item has appeared because of a cold cased review; clearly WP:NOTNEWS. And also WP:NOTMEMORIAL TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone I just think victims like Margaret and Seana deserve a voice. Someone has to care about them. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do respect the desire to memorialise; I just think that a lot of the time this can be done in lists.TheLongTone (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone and Shadowowl Would you both be agreeable to retaining Margaret and Seana's brief entry at List of unsolved deaths instead of a separate article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Paul Benjamin Austin: has to stop with his excessive memorial arguments and may have a Conflict of Interest. » Shadowowl | talk 14:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a tendency to see promotional newspaper articles as unreliable, and such I will not see ref 1 as reliable. The third ref is better, but the second one is not accessible , not even through the archive. That leaves 1 reliable source, which is not enough to pass WP:NOTNEWS. » Shadowowl | talk 14:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- We cannot have an article about every unsolved murder: WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to get involved due to a possible canvassing issue. Let's all stay civil.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 23:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible? Stop the presses on the Signpost: the Understatement of the Year can be awarded early. Qwirkle (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle Like I said above, would you be agreeable to retaining Margaret and Seana's brief entry on List of unsolved deaths in lieu of a separate article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Indeed, not just “no”, but “no fucking way.” You have openly admitted that this is being done for a purpose -memorialization, that is not what an encyclopedia is for. This isn’t a cenotaph, or an obit page, or one of those bizarre death dates some unfortunate people put on the back glass of their car. You have blatantly canvassed, and the only support suggested has been based on a bottom-dredge of Google.

Wikipedia has more than enough agenda-driven bullshit on it already.

Stop trying to add to it. Qwirkle (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Icewhiz and BabbaQ. This is not a typical unsolved murder either, so we are in no danger of having an article about every unsolved murder. James500 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a more plausible search bar to make it easier for editors to see the ONGOING coverage. Case appears in books because samples from this and 2 other murders were confused. Coverage has been ongoing [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings up Revolvypedia and Reddit in the first ~~listing~~page? Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, any news search will bring up recent coverage of this 1984 murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a good archive search brings up INDEPTH coverage over many years, for example: Herald Sun, 23 July 2008. p. 3. It's a long story, but here are some details: "as a result of dramatic improvements in DNA technology... Scientists were recently able to get a DNA profile from semen left on nine-year-old Seana Tapp's underwear... "Little Seana, nine years old, had been sexually assaulted and both of them had been strangled," he said....E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2018 (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.