Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Personally suggest the article simply renamed as Tom ap Rhys Pryce. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce

edit
Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article documents a horrible thing which was a tragedy for all involved, and I don't in any way seek to diminish that. But sadly, the fact is that there are two or three murder victims a week in this country, and only rarely do the circumstances of a murder generate the kind of long lasting impact on society that would demand an encyclopaedia entry. The Moors murders, Yorkshire Ripper, Harold Shipman and occurrences like that warrant an article, but I do not think an article on every murder victim is appropriate or desirable. WP:NOT states that subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered. Worldtraveller 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the kind of article that tends to develop around a news event. Apparently, when this fellow got killed it was big news, and folks from the UK put up no fewer than 31 reference links to support their account. I would be hesitant to delete such an article, although maybe the biography is overblown. YechielMan 02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources to show it was notable, don't see how the logic of 'just another murder' changes that.--Dacium 02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If Blair said something about it, then yeah, I think that's pretty notable. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It needs a good copy edit - some quite badly structured sentences here. 2cents... SeanMack 10:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I'm a little torn on this one. I'm not convinced this is notable in the grand scheme of things and is only so at the moment because it was a particularly notable murder in London. Looking at the bigger picture, as wikipedia is not a memorial and murders are not an uncommon feature around the world I'm not sure that this one will stand out. MLA 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This is a notable murder event in the UK. There is a need to cleanup the article. With many sources cited, this has more than enough assertion of notability. Terence Ong 12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this event has been publicized enough LHOON 14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very well know death and should stay on wiki.--Skully Collins Edits 14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the U.S it is "missing white girl" stories which get the big disproportionate big news play, and apparently in Britain it is "murdered lawyer" which dominates the airwaves. He is still just one man, otherwise apparently non-notable, who was the victim of a street crime by extremely non-notable robbers. He got his 15 minutes (in this case 3 months) of fame, but in the long run this is still material for Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is no the tabloid murder news, and is not a memorial. Large U.S. cities have 1000 such victims a year. Edison 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep i wrote most of this myself, so i suppose my opinion doesnt matter but here's some reasons why its obviously notible.
  1. This was one of the first known cases were Oyster card use was used as eveidence against someone.
  2. It raised the issue of station security and how private companies where failing to keep rail users safe, even having Tony Blair promise to look into it as a result.
  3. The trial was one of the first to have the families of the victim to speak in court.
  4. David Cameron wrote an article on the issue and spoke out agaiant the governments handling of crime as a result.
  5. A charity has been formed as a result.
  6. Sir Ian Blair highlighted this case as an example of Institutional racism in the media.
Well theres more but should be enough.--FabioTalk 16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was fairly big news in the UK for a while, and provoked a response on many issues. RHB Talk - Edits 17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable citations indicate this was a notable event which received heavy coverage in the UK press, and received the attention of the leader of the country. As such, it's rather similar to Wikipedia's article on Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced to multiple independent third-party sources. Completely verifiable, and covered well enough to be notable. Geuiwogbil 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article with over 30 news articles included for reference is clearly fairly well sourced and meets notability guidelines for verification in multiple (ie more than one) major publications). Dugwiki 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we delete an article that so clearly passes our WP:N and WP:V criteria, then how can we ever justify referencing those same guidlelines as reasons to delete truely non-notable and unverifiable content? -- Antepenultimate 22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - people seem to be thinking that because something is verifiable it must be encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews and just because something has made news headlines does not make it encyclopaedic. Also, people seem to be overestimating the impact this had in the UK. Tony Blair talks about a lot of things and his word does not bestow notability on something. There are many comparable incidents which do not have articles and which rightly should not have articles. The cases of Margaret Muller, Jonathan Zito, Mohammed Parvaiz and Michael Menson spring to mind. And to better judge the overall impact of this event you may wish to look at this BBC news search result: [1]. The BBC News website alone has had more than 500 articles about numerous murders since this one was last mentioned on 13 December. Worldtraveller 00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was Tom ap Rhys Pryce himself notable? Would he have merited an article if this terrible thing hadn't happened? Think forward a year - will the 700 or so murders that will have happened in the UK in that time have spawned 700 murder victim articles? Does someone automatically become notable if someone else kills them? How about the 15,000 US murder victims? 25,000 victims in Baghdad? 17,000 Colombians? All the references in the article cite news sources. To me that strongly indicates that this is a suitable subject for a news website but not for an encyclopaedia. Likewise with the other cases I mentioned, where if you read what I said you'll say I certainly didn't say I thought they deserved articles. Worldtraveller 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah, I misread that one line, apologies. Anyway, as per the question "Was Tom apRhys Pryce himself notable?" - That is a completely moot point - The article is named Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce. You're making a lot of "I don't like it" sounding arguments, and I still don't see a single guideline referenced in your arguments. Until a separate Wikipedia:Notability (news) is established with multiple editors bringing consensus (and that really isn't a bad idea, as Zunaid makes some good points below), I feel we should stick by the quidelines we actually have. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Whilst not perhaps meeting criteria of notability if it had occurred in the US, this was a significant event in the UK and led to questions in the House of Commons and House of Lords regarding increased serious & violent crime in the UK, particularly in areas of London previously considered 'safe'. It also meets all WP:N criteria with regard non-trivial coverage from a number of media sources, where the commentary was based not just on the event, but its social & political implications. '15 -minutes' point covered by 'permanence of notability' of WP:N. No-brainer, in my opinion. Also, consider comments like those of Edison unhelpful, ad hominem, and ill-informed. Scandrett 14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Seeing the notability criterion used this way makes me sad. Hesperian 12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metacomment: At the moment there is no Wikipedia:Notability (news) guideline, and in the absence of this there will undoubtedly be many AfD's of this nature where deletion arguments can only be based on assertions of WP:NOT Wikinews or some sort of hand-waving notability or WP:BIO argument. The inherent problem with newsworthy topics is that they are de facto the subject of "multiple non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources". Even items of merely provincial/state-wide importance (which is not the case here) fall under this description. Also, there are MANY issues which politicians or prominent figures comment on every day, if only for the sake of making a statement to the press and/or to the public. Following the letter of the guidelines then, EVERY news item covered by multiple newspapers in EVERY country EVERY day should by rights have an article in the 'pedia, which I'm sure all but the most vehement inclusionists will agree is inappropriate. At its heart, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and in the absence of a news notability guideline, common sense somehow has to prevail. That said, user:Fabrib's points no. 1 and 3 (but IMHO not the others) prima facie indicate why this particular murder case is notable from a legal perspective and is encyclopedia-worthy. All the other points just add to its newsworthiness, which is irrelevant to the discussion. Delete unless rewritten to focus more on the encyclopedia-worthy legal aspects of the case/trial, which IMHO are the only things encyclopedically notable about this event. The problem with this article is that it is majority focused on the news aspects such as: 1. the life details of the victim and murderers (remember: none of whom were notable in and of themselves), 2. the murder itself (this could be summarised, it is presented in FAR too much step-by-step detail), 3. politicians' quotes and 4. memorial funds and such-like. None of these things are out of the ordinary for slightly-above-average murder cases (heck, its not out-of-the-ordinary for "lesser" newsworthy events than murder) and do not contribute to raising this article from news to encyclopedia material. Zunaid©® 14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. OK, you've come up with two latin legal terms, but still no guidelines that actually exist. That said, it probably is high time a Wikipedia:Notability (news) is created - you make some excellent points (although, in reality, I don't believe it very likely that anyone is apt to waste the time to make articles for "every news item" as you said, and such topics that are actually covered by multiple sources probably have merger potential for an existing article). Now, as for your delete vote - I still don't see any actual deletion criteria being applied here, as even you admit that this subject is encyclopedic in its way, and that the encyclopedic elements are present, although diluted. If you feel the article should be cleaned up, then tag it as such, discuss the issue on the talk page, and/or take a try at reworking the article yourself. Deletion of this article, at this point, would be little more than laziness. -- Antepenultimate 15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are currently no deletion criteria to apply to newsworthy topics. In the absence thereof I (and I'm sure many other editors) have to resort to long-winded arguments such as the above to explain our rationale. Remember the guideline are prescriptive, not descriptive and exceptions are allowed. This swings both ways: articles may be kept despite failing guidelines, and so too may articles be deleted without obviously failing any guidelines. My point about "every news item getting an article" isn't that editors will spend time creating them, it is that once created there is no possibility, via the current guidelines, for deleting them. As for your cleanup suggestion, my personal POV is to never !vote "keep and rewrite" on AfD's as far too many articles end up being kept without getting the subsequent rewrite done to them (there was some discussion about what to do about "keep and rewrite" on the Village Pump quite recently which touched on this very problem). Zunaid©® 09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The conflation and confusion of news notability with encyclopedic notability is a major issue. I agree with Zunaid - almost all articles or reports in news channels are covered by multiple sources so even the most trivial or sensationalist human interest story can get a technical pass of current weak general notability guidelines. On another level we also need guidelines (I'm skeptical about leaving anything to "common sense") to start distinguishing between serious news items that are only of news notability and those that are also encyclopedically notable. These are not the same thing. News organizations have different functions and rationales from encyclopedias. Every murder or other major crime is serious and a "notable" event for police, the victims, the crime reporters - yes may even be asked in parliament or raised by some politician but that is a routine function of political systems (especially democratic ones) and not automatically an indication of encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or a police report archive Bwithh 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's becoming clear to me that the real problem isn't neccessarily this article, but the lack of applicable guidelines for this type of article. Something should be done about that. In terms of this article, however - comparing this with a trivial or sensationalist "human interest" story isn't really fair, and I say that because this doesn't clear the "multiple independent source" requirement by having only two references - it has upwards of thirty, and there's no reason to assume that the list is exhaustive. Yeah, I know this could fall under "sensationalist" except for some items written above (and if sensationalism is a problem then we're going to have to start cocking our eyebrows at a lot of content within celebrity articles) that Zunaid admitted could have value. Now, as per the no Keep and Rewrite policy Zunaid has adopted, that is fine and it is his right to do so. I haven't had time to peruse the discussion at the Village Pump, but my opinion on this matter is that if less people simply stopped at giving instructions and more tried to follow through themselves - rather than expecting someone else to step up to the plate and do the dirty work - this would be less of a problem. If you feel strongly that something should be changed, I see no reason why you can't Be Bold and work on it yourself. Anyway, if someone would like to start up a discussion pertaining to getting a Wikipedia:Notability (news) policy put together, I would be happy to chime in. Some good discussion (IMO) has already taken place here, and if Zunaid can find other instances of similar AfDs, we may already have some precedents. Perhaps we can save everyone from having to resort to these long-winded explanations in the future. -- Antepenultimate 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment great exposition of the situation Zunaid. Though the list presented by Fabrib isn't designed to be exhaustive, I don't think point 3 is actually correct so that would only leave point 1 which isn't itself an indicator of the notability of this case. MLA 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per the above comments by several editors, I have created a proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (news) where these ides of distinguishing what is newsworth from what is encyclopedic, can be continued. I have borrowed some of the ideas expressed in this debate in creating the first draft of the guideline. Please comment further on the talk page for thatproposed guideline. Edison 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I repeat my earlier preference for Keep; however it might be more appropriate to move the article to [[Tom ap Rhys Pryce]]. LHOON 16:22, 2 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Tom_ap_Rhys_Pryce&oldid=1138104187"