Request to restore article deleted a year ago

10 months ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen was closed as delete; closing editor noted, accurately, that few editors weighed in in support keep, and that most editors described coverage as "routine"; although there was a strong minority opinion to keep. I am not arguing that the close was in any way improper at that time. The problem is that the AFD took place shortly after the murder, making it impossible to validate assertions at AFD that this murder failed WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and that it was WP:ROUTINE. I request that the article be restored on the grounds that it was not a WP:ROUTINE as evidenced by the fact that - unlike "routine" murders - this murder received national and international coverage when it happened, in the year since, and, most recently, when the murderer was convicted. The victim is from Florida and the murder took place in Florence). As an example of the kind of non-routine coverage this has generated, this: [1] essay in Salon.com on this murder as an example of the kind of harassment foreign women experience in Italian cities, and of the way young, attractive female murder victims can be blamed for their own deaths. Here is a small sample of recent and international coverage: 1.) Conviction of the murderer had gotten major international attention, detailed coverage in the New York Times, [2], The Guardian,[3]. 2.) Coverage has been ongoing since the murder and arrest, [4], [5] and the trial was covered outside Italy [6]. Olsen's murder is cited as an example of the way criminals can prey on visiting foreigners in Italian cities [7]. In sum, although an argument that this murder garnered "only routine coverage" was not implausible last February, it now seems clear, even from the small sample of ongoing coverage that I have linked, that this was a notable murder as evidenced by the the extensive and substantive national and international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Note that I made this request to closing editor, who responded: "Personally, I think that the newer coverage is just as routine as the old, but if you want to take this to DRV seeking recreation on the basis of new coverage, please do so with my blessing."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I see that that discussion was contaminated by a sock puppet.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @E.M.Gregory: IMO, the first deletion was ok given the newness of the event, although everyone knew that more information was coming, so a move to user space or draftspace could have been considered, as is also mentioned in WP:RAPID.  I'd have to read the AfD several more times to sort it out, but much of the discussion is now obsolete, for multiple reasons. 

    We have reliably sourced information, and longlasting and international attention, and now one hit on Google Books.  I had better results using "Cheik Diaw" as a search term.  There is nothing "routine" about the Salon article.  Given how fresh the conviction news is here, the first thing to do might be to wait a couple of more weeks, and then ask the admin to userfy the article. 

    One factor that might weigh in is the considerable attention given to illegal-immigrant crime during the past year in the US presidential election, and will continue to get in the coming year.  The AfD points out that a similar process was already occurring in Europe.  Each of the two people in the center of this event draw unusual attention for a murder.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Is there some way to move this discussion along?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
More