Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Arlene Fraser

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. W.marsh 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Arlene Fraser

OK. I created this article as it seems to be a notable murder case, and was surprised that Wikipedia didn't have anything about it already. However, it may violate WP:NOT#NEWS, although this particular case seemed to have generated continued media interest in the part of the world that I come from. I don't know, what do you think - is the case notable and Wikipedia-worthy? h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's good of you to nominate your own article. As to what to do with it: it does not seem very notable, but the book on it would suggest a sufficiency of notability to cause the author to write it. I'm going to guess that this debate will be more about whether people are deletionists or not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are a multitude of sources about the case since 1998 from both the BBC and the Scotsman newspaper alone that I can find, and a book about the case, excluding all the other news references that I haven't looked at yet, or stuff that isn't available online. But that's why I nominated it - I want to see if people think it violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Certainly the case seems to have had more than temporary notability...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that this is the third article that I have created myself that I have nominated for deletion within the past two weeks. I'm not sure exactly why I do this, but it isn't mere attention-seeking. It's the fact that I don't seem to have faith in myself that if I make an article about something, especially a pop culture/news-related subject, that it is truly notable despite the existence of sources. This is because I assume that Wikipedia would have an article about it already if it was notable.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a huge article right now, but certainly notable and worth expanding on - see here for example. Sure, not every murder is notable. But this seems to fit the bill. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if theres a book about it it must be notable to some point.--Cartman005 02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Murder victim, so what? Tiptopper 14:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I get the feeling that if this case had happened in the United States, Wikipedia would have had an article on it already and no one would have considered deleting it. News coverage has extended for far longer than in the Madeleine McCann case, although obviously not quite in the same manner as the latter's extreme and constant press coverage.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely the existence of a book written seven years after the event establishes notability, in the same way that the existence of an independent biography does for biographical article. Good to see that the article is called Murder of Arlene Fraser rather than Arlene Fraser because it's the event that is notable, not the person. Phil Bridger 14:40, 10 November 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.