Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Jenni-Lyn Watson

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 delete.

The headcount is about 14-8 (in favour of delete). Normally to close against these numbers (as "no consensus" or "keep") would require a different balance in strength of argument or an overriding policy reason to keep. That just isn't the case here. Quite the opposite.

The keep !votes that focus on the news coverage that the case has received overlook the reason for the nomination being WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT: no-one disputes this has received coverage, the question is whether it has the impact or enduring notability required to overcome WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. Even the keep !votes that address these policies/guidelines concede to some extent that it is largely too early to say. Without enduring notability or impact having been demonstrated, the consensus is to delete.

As DGG points out, the crystal-balling unvoidably covers both sides of the debate, it being too early to say there is no lasting impact or enduring notability). Accordingly there may be reason to recreate the article if such impact or notability comes to fruition in the future. Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jenni-Lyn Watson

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

as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance". unfortunately people disappear all the time and get murdered by ex-partners, don't see how this merits a WP article. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL and not obituary. 76.66.194.128 (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. For an event to be notable it is required to have lasting coverage extending significantly beyond the event, or be a significant and well-discussed precursor to or result of another notable event. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As the subject may relate to missing white woman syndrome and possibly for that reason has received national media coverage, that should suffice to satisfy our general notability requirements. I agree that the article may resemble an obituary as the level of detailing of the victim's life does appear exaggerated given the relevant focus at what would constitute notability for it as a Wikipedia article. However, that is not an argument for deletion. I also believe that NOTNEWS should probably not come to use here, but I'm a bit unsure. __meco (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - notable case. heard alot about it. it has reached beyond the general notability requirements. --195.84.41.1 (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IKNOWIT is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read trough WP:BLUDGEON as you referred to someone else. this article should be kept.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems strange that you refer to a WP guideline that you dont follow yourself by the way.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steady Keep ´Per me being the creator of the article. Also the media coverage indicates notability. And as established above here the facts in the article isnt an argument for deletion as established by Meco. Also the reasoning "notable it is required to have lasting coverage extending significantly beyond the event" can not be a reason for deletion right now as it hasnt been established if it will be a lasting coverage yet, her body was found only a day or two ago. So keep it is for me,--BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The case is receiving a lot of press coverage, but persistence is not yet clear. KimChee (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL not obituary and WP:NOTNEWS.impablomations (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.110.122 (talk) 13:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the white missing woman syndrome I personally believe that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Also I dont understand the WP:NOTMEMORIAL cause for deletion... I mean its hard to write about this kind of cases without mentioning the victim. To keep for know would be the best way in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also IP:89.240.110.122 for a person who doesnt like "these kind of articles" you seem to have a huge interest in the subject of the article as you have only made edits concerning Jenni-Lyn Watson. A contradiction in itself as you said delete.. hmm.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. While tragic, there is nothing out of the ordinary or especially newsworthy here. Honestly, every cute, white girl that goes missing hits the airwaves in some fashion. Separate the wheat from the chaff here; this is no Meredith Kercher or Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points, BUT I believe we cant assume that this case wont blow up to be in the same "crime size" as for example Elizabeth Smart. Her disappearance didnt garner alot of attention (atleast not more than this case in question) until she was eventually found and people became more aware of what had happened to her. If someone would have created a Elisabeth Smart article days after she disappeared then people could have claimed just exactly the same thing as you just did and it would have been deleted. I think we have to wait for atleast 2011 before someone can in reality evaluate if this is a Meredith Kercher case etc etc as you point out... The boyfriend havent told anything yet and she could for example be a victim of a serial killer or a sexual offerender or a sect... what ever.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think personally that people contradicts themselves when they write about other cases that didnt became big until sometime afterwards. Because that is what can happen to this case in the next few week,months.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't write articles first and then cross our fingers hoping that the subject matter will somehow become more notable down the road, no. When all you can say about an event is "girl missing, girl found dead, suspect arrested", that's really not worthy of an entry into an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there is more to the case. As I have pointed out above, and under this comment. If we should follow that example that you are saying we should have to delete basically all crime story article on Wikipedia. And I dont buy that for a second.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also being top news on Fox News and ABC news from November 19 to now.. and still being mentioned confirms notaiblity beyond any of the WP-rules that has been brough forward by people in this discussion it also reminds me of another case that became very notable Natalee Holloway.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/sigh Being "in the news" is not an adequate response to WP:NOTNEWS. We KNOW it is it "in the news", that is the point; it is ONLY a news story, one that is routine and not out-of-the-ordinary. Hundreds are killed across the country every day, many of them make the news, some catch the eye of the drive-by national cable media. Look at the google news hits right at this moment; 1 HuffPo, then it trails down into local syracuse.com coverage. This will in all likelihood fade into obscurity by the time this AfD's 7-day period is up. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how can you ensure that this will fade away by this Afds end?.. How can you guarantee that something new in the investigation will be revealed on day 10 after the 7-day period that will make this case even more notable then it already is. Speculations from your side.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"can you guarantee that something new in the investigation will be revealed on day 10 after the 7-day period that will make this case even more notable " WP:CRYSTAL, so you are projecting future notability. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not guaranteeing anything, but as I noted above, the coverage appears to be diminishing, not increasing. But the point is, we should not approach these things with a presumption of increased notability down the road. What is out there right now in the news is insufficient to distinguish this from any other sad murder case. Your fervent desire to retain this article is based on a hope that the coverage will continue to grow. The Wikipedia does not...or should not, anyways...work that way. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and opinion:For example this event has been one of Fox News and ABC news main news stories from the day she disappeared. Many young women disappears each month in the US not all get the this kind of attention that Jenni-Lyn Watsons has recieved so that speaks for itself also when it comes to her disappearance and deaths notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without meaning to be offensive to the real tragedy of this event, I eat breakfast every day but I particularly enjoyed my breakfast this morning. The fact that today's breakfast is more notable than breakfast generally does not mean it satisfies Wikipedia's notability policies or that it should have an article on Wikipedia. In order to get an article, per WP:EVENT, my breakfast would need to have consequences of lasting significance, affect a broad geographic or demographic swathe, or be the subject of lasting discussion so as to demonstrate its enduring historic importance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why do I want this deleted and think the murder of Sally Anne Bowman must remain? Certainly not because the latter happened a few kilometres from where I live. Sadly, you are far more likely to be murdered by someone you know than by a stranger which reduces the notability of Jenni-Lyn's death. Also in Jenni-Lyn's case, a suspect was found and apprehended quickly. If this case is still remembered in twelve months' time, feel free to re-submit. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Im not buying it, its a hollow argument. But respect your opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "hollow argument" kind of undoes the "respect your opinion" thing. Best not to comment on every single remark, Babba. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't need a page for every victim of a crime. This person is otherwise completely unnotable. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whilst I'm probably just sounding like an echo, as above editors have mentioned this article really isn't suitable for inclusion, Wikipedia is not a memorial or news service. The news coverage is, from an objective emotion-free point of view, not more than a trivial mention as television and print news outlets tend to publicize incidents such as this. This coverage does not establish notability and we cannot predict whether there will be ongoing or new coverage that will establish long-term notability. --§Pumpmeup 10:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly we cant predict if this article will reach an even higher level of notability one day after a potential deletion. In these kind of cases we shouldnt delete in the first few weeks. It is as simple as that. It has already reached notaiblity per coverage, per the fact of white woman syndrome etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no BabbaQ that's WP:CRYSTAL. you are projecting and assuming future notability. suggest you stop responding to almost every single comment as per WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you dont seem yo follow the WP:BLUDGEON guideline yourself by looking at your other mass Afd creations Libstar, so why asking the article creator in this particular afd to do so. he/she is simply trying to give his/hers point of view just like you do. just saying!--195.84.41.1 (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Edit As per "White Women's Missing Syndrome" I was directed to this article. I agree that the article should be edited with up to date information, nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.46.115 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — 68.96.46.115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Just making this edit because the last edit before me was an undo of Libstar's previous edit by an IP. Normally an undo at an AfD would be a sign of vandalism but after comparing revisions everything checks out and nothing seems to have been lost. Libstar appears to have, whether accidentally or otherwise, deleted the arguments of another commentor, and the undo restores them. Hopefully this saves time for other editors scratching their head over it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes it was an accident. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:Note. Unfortunate and tragic events like this happen all to often. With a body already found and an alleged murderer charged in such a short time, the only notability would be the swiftness the body was found and, while tragic, there was no notability otherwise. Comparing this case to Elizabeth Smart is definitely wrong. She was missing for how many years, turns up alive and brainwashed and her kidnappers alive and charged. I noticed there is already an addition into the missing white woman syndrome page. It should be updated when and if a conviction is made. This is not a WP:CRYSTAL and we have no current way to show notability. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per BabbaQ - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see nothing wrong with the article. I see no reasons for a delete.68.156.142.92 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason to keep an article, as it amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did say that " I see no reasons for the article to be deleted", so if you feel there are reasons for the article to be removed, then please proceed to list some reasons why.

Comment:Also the fact that this Afd isnt a clear cut delete with many good points provided by the "keep side" points towards an interest and notability of this particular article. I also do believe that the Missing white woman syndrome list of women gives a great guideline to what kind of articles of this nature are usually created and not deleted on Wikipedia. And I have read trough some of them about missing women, and to what I can see their isnt mutch difference between this article on Jenni-Lyn and several of those who are on that list and hasnt been deleted. It atleast shows some precedent and directions to what guideline Wikipedia has on this kind of subjects.Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin doesn't need you to pre-determine what the outcome is, thanks. Arguments are weighed on their own strengths and merits, not be a simple head-count. What he/she does need to note though is that you weighed in once earlier ("steady keep") followed by two bold-faced comments; these need to be counted as just 1 opinion to keep, and not 3. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that already. I am simply trying to save a save worthy article (in my opinion). And I do think we should and could keep our heads cold and being respectful towards each other and also not go to overdrive with the "accusations" everytime someone is trying to give new reasons (and good ones) for Keep. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly dont understand why this happens in 90% of the Afd everytime a Keep-side person tries to give good and good faith reasons for non-deletion. I think it is sad honestly that we cant just give good reasons instead of giving reasons of to why the other user is insane. I feel offended actually. But that doesnt matter. I believe in my right to free speech.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing is WP:BLUDGEON, where someone feels the need to respond to virtually every opinion from the other side of the fence. Sometimes it is better to say your piece and then generally sit back and let things unfold as they will. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes OK. Everyone can make mistakes I guess, im not admitting to anything and we I guess have to agree to disagree on some points. Peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does Wikipedia suffer from pretty white girl syndrome too? It appears that way. This was in the news (marginally) for a week or so. Grsz 11 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was ready to be positive and find something worthwhile in the article, but I didn't. This isn't notable--it's news, memorial, etc. The one sentence in there (with one reference) about media speculation, that's not enough to argue MWWS-derived notability; it's barely enough to warrant a half a sentence in the MWWS article. Basically, we have another unfortunate victim of man's apparent desire to call "his" woman, and that is not enough for notability. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The murder of any caucasian woman may be related to Missing white woman syndrome , so that is not any reason to keep this. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't keep it based on the possibility it might get notable. It seems a textbook case of WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NEWS, and we don't do that here. If the situation warrants restoration sometime later, so be it.LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit. Sufficient coverage to withstand notnews. Editing issues do not warrant deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it satisfies WP:NOTNEWS, it falls foul of WP:EVENT and would be deleted accordingly. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in fact it doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS it has reached notability. So WP:EVENT does not apply. In my opinion. This is so obviously a NO Consensus Afd in my personal opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, you should WP:LETGO and let the AfD run its course and not try to get the outcome you so want unilaterally. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:Notability (events): Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. 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. Thus, even coverage is not necessarily enough to meet notability. The question is: a few years from now, is this event still sufficiently notable. I don't mean to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think that this guidelines sums up the concensus of the people weighing in on the delete side of this argument. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete The criteria for NOT NEWS--what counts as recentism, and how one is to tell whether something will be historically notable, are not capable of exact definition. (Once something has become historically notable, then that can be determined. But if we are to cover anything that has happened in the last two or three years, we need to make a judgement, and I do not see how to make a judgement other than by entirely personal impressions. There are some rules of thumb--personally, I consider international coverage a reasonable guide, and I do not see it here. With murders, I think it's the firm consensus that single murders are not generally notable; where above it the cutoff should be is a little harder. Weak delete only, because there's no way of arguing the question. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 December 2010 (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.