Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Carnation murders

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  Sandstein  12:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Carnation murders

[edit]
2007 Carnation murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor murder that does not meet WP:EVENT notability criteria, which has had no WP:LASTING effect on anything. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and does not collect endless information on minor crimes that are not encyclopaedic. Has had no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, does not appear in a WP:DIVERSE variety of sources, does not have any WP:DEPTH of coverage, and mentions, even from years ago, are primarily in local press, hence not meeting WP:GEOSCOPE. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where and how? What is the lasting impact? RGloucester — ☎ 04:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where do "sources indicate notability"? Where are these sources? Did you read our criteria, such as WP:LASTING, WP:DEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? I imagine not. This was never a notable incident. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has, in fact, been continued coverage, as is evident from the story yesterday in the Seattle Times [1] about the jury being selected. This and the other sources I have added to the article since this AFD began also establish the existence of in-depth coverage of this event. Everymorning talk 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. One incidence of routine coverage of jury selection in one local newspaper does not indicate WP:DEPTH or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The event must be covered in WP:DIVERSE sources outside a narrow WP:GEOSCOPE. It must also have a WP:LASTING impact. It has none of these things. Simply open Google News, and it is easy to see this. All one sees is a very few articles in local outlets about routine legal business, nothing more. In fact, one sees many more false hits. There is no "in-depth" coverage. I think you did not read WP:DEPTH, or any of the other criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, but how is the Seattle Times a local newspaper? It's the largest newspaper in its state with 230 thousand readers. JTdaleTalk~ 19:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times, and the New York Times for that matter, also cover local news. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Times is a newspaper for a small state in one country, which itself is but a small part of the world. It is a local newspaper. You shan't find The Seattle Times on sale in London or Berlin, shall you? I'm surprised you cannot tell the difference between a national and a local newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is the result of a grossly provincial attitude, and you obviously know nothing about Seattle or its media (and probably as little about the US as well). The Seattle Times is a major American newspaper -- not the first rank, not the NY Times or the Washington Post or the LA Times, but definitely in the level just below. You will find the Seattle Times in London in exactly the same kind of store that you will find the Times of London at in New York City, in an out-of-town newsstand. BMK (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, sir. If it doesn't appear in a diverse variety of sources persistently, it does not meet the criteria. Appearing once or so as a matter of routine reporting in a regional newspaper is neither diverse coverage, nor persistent coverage. I shall have you know that I live in America, so I hardly believe the idea that I "know little" it. Odd that I've never seen the Seattle Times on sale in Edinburgh, when I'm home. Odd. Very odd. Regardless, if it only appears in the Seattle Times on a rare routine basis, that does not demonstrate lasting impact, persistent coverage, or diverse coverage. You've failed. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DAMN!! I missed the new notability requirement that all reliable sources must be available on sale in Edinburgh (a city, incidentally, whose population is only 2/3rds of Seattle's, and whose main paper, the Edinburgh Evening News has a circulation 1/7th that of the Seattle Times). BMK (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said such. There is a reason I don't write articles about parochial crimes in Edinburgh. Likewise, no one should be doing such for any other place either, unless it can be demonstrated that the event meets the criteria of having a lasting impact, appearing in a diverse variety of sources, and having continued coverage in that diverse variety. This event clearly does not meet those criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where, exactly? Can you demonstrate where it is "sufficiently established"? I have not seem any such evidence provided. I have listed the criteria, and yet it doesn't seem that anyone has tried to claim that this article actually meets them. Or perhaps you are doing a certain something that can be considered vindictive, and not becoming of someone of your station? If that's the case, I fear I shall have to take action against you. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As with many other aspects of Wikipedia, you clearly do not understand what "notability" means, or when its requirements are met. It's quite obvious that this article easily meets them, and has quite enough referencing from very reliable sources (the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for instance.).

As for "vindictive", if you mean that I have noted your considerable lack of judgment on a number of occasions, as well as your hypocritical behavior and your failure to understand how Wikipedia works and what its basic premise is, and for these reasons decided to take a look to see what other harm you might be doing to the project -- yes, that is true, and it lead me here, and I examined the article and the sources and the evidence and the opinions of others in their comments, and I decided that, once again, you were wrong, hence my opinion that the article should be kept. If you want to "take action" against me for expressing an opinion you don't agree with, that's your privilege, but I'd be surprised if it got any traction, especially considering the way you blithely mutilate and misinterpret Wikiways in order to get the results you want. BMK (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here we go. You have not read WP:EVENT. There are criteria. It must appear in diverse sources, it must have a lasting impact, it must have continued coverage long after the event has ceased, and it must heavily affect a region, group of people, &c. You've not demonstrated how it meets these criteria. It simply doesn't. There is no continuing coverage in diverse sources, and there is no evidence that it has had a lasting impact anywhere, despite the fact that years have passed. I find it hard to take someone seriously that both ignores Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and attacks another editor for no apparent reason other than to be vindictive. You've not examined anything. You are here to make a point. You've made it. I hope you are content with yourself, for it is you who is damaging the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 05:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'll be content when the article is kept, as it should be. BMK (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, you accuse me of being "partisan". What a lovely world, we all inhabit. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that I have a partisan reason for wanted this article to be kept, as opposed to having examined the evidence and made a judgment based on it? Do you actually read anything you write, or do you use one of those automated gibberish generators where you feed in a bunch of "my dear sirs" and "I shall be compelled to take action" and "I am as my creator made me" and then push the button? BMK (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject fails WP:EVENT and there are currently no policy based arguments for "keep". "Sources indicate keep" suggests that notability is self-evident, but we have guidelines for dealing with topics that are mentioned in the news and WP:EVENT is one of them. This topic clearly does not pass any of its various subsections of that guideline, including WP:LASTING (the murders have not drummed up new legislation, etc.), WP:GEOSCOPE (there is virtually no interest in this outside of the local area), WP:DEPTH (there isn't much to say other than a man and a woman may have killed her family members because her parents wanted them to pay rent... ho hum), WP:PERSISTENCE (the murder/arrest/trial/sentencing/appeal process is essentially one event and no one outside the local area seems to care much), and WP:DIVERSE (notable crimes tend to get coverage beyond the breaking news outside the local area in newspapers, weekly magazines, and books). - Location (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a local crime story, domestic murders are rarely notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 03:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a mass murder of six people, not a "minor crime" as the nominator would have it. I have supported deletion of articles about run-of-the-mill killings, but a mass murder is a more encyclopedia-worthy topic than the murder of one or two people, and a subject of ongoing research. The FBI defines "mass murder" as four or more fatalities, and for me, that is a good working threshold. I apply that standard to murders in Scotland as well as Seattle. Earlier today, I expanded an article about a mass murder in China. Location is irrelevant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even bother to read WP:EVENT? "Mass murder" is not "encylopaedia-worthy" unless it meets the WP:EVENT criteria. This does not. Number of deaths has nothing to do with notability. Talk about WP:OR and blatant flouting of our guidelines and policies. People are murdered everyday, and in significant batches too. Deaths are not inherently notable. That's minor, unless it has some wider historical significance for some reason. This does not. No one has demonstrated that this has, and no one has demonstrated that there is any "research" ongoing about this murder. RGloucester — ☎ 06:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of murders involve one or two victims, and murders of six at once are relatively rare in comparison. I consider such mass murders notable. My claim is that mass murders in general are researched, and that this encyclopedia should have categories, lists and articles covering them. Yes, I have read the guideline repeatedly. You interpret it stringently and narrowly, where I see it as a guideline rather than as royal writ. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
People die. That's a fact of life, as far as I'm aware. Unless the people are important, or the reason they died was important, death is not notable. Murder is not notable, nor is mass murder, unless it is laden with historical meaning. If you want to be a tabloid journalist, go find a newspaper to work for. Until then, please do not insist on keeping rubbish sensationalist articles that exist only to allow people to gawk and gossip at the misfortunes of others. You are polluting the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I insist on nothing, but have simply expressed my interpretation of the notability of this particular topic. I will lose no sleep if it is deleted. If my reasoning is flawed in this case, then it will be discounted by the closing administrator. Your "polluting the encyclopedia" remark says far more about you than it does about me. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it says that I like to keep this house in order, free of detritus, dirt, and other rubbish, which should not sully the carpet of a good man's household things. You, on the other hand, are content to live in a dirty pile, it seems. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that The Seattle Times is an RS. That has nothing to do with whether the article meets the WP:EVENT criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 16:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought the Seattle Times' credentials as an RS were being questioned when you said this: "The Seattle Times is a newspaper for a small state in one country, which itself is but a small part of the world. It is a local newspaper. You shan't find The Seattle Times on sale in London or Berlin, shall you? I'm surprised you cannot tell the difference between a national and a local newspaper." Vrac (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wasn't a dispute about the reliability of the paper. It was a dispute about whether this event was continually covered in WP:DIVERSE sources over a long period. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:ROUTINE court coverage that doesn't imply encyclopaedic significance. Whether it came out "today" or not doesn't matter, per WP:NOTNEWS. What matters is whether that one article that came out today demonstrates a WP:LASTING historical effect, and whether there is a WP:CONTINUED WP:DEEP coverage in WP:DIVERSE sources. Routine coverage of a trial is sensationalism, and has no bearing on whether to include this in an encylopaedia. Also note that the report you cited is a wire piece from AP, and hence fails WP:DIVERSE, and also WP:DEPTH. RGloucester — ☎ 23:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Washington Times piece goes beyond being simply routine - if you'd read it, you'd know that. Not quite sure what the rubbish you're spouting about AP is about, but each of the things I've cited has come from different news stories, so... Everyone knows what your position is - stop badgering the delete voters, especially as consensus is definitely against you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is against you, because consensus is based in policy. It is routine, and it is merely an AP wire piece, which fails WP:DIVERSE. Again, all of them have come from regional papers, and have been routine court coverage. Nothing more. That fails WP:EVENT. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you were correct, then most people in this AfD would've voted to delete as well. They haven't, and you aren't. WP:DROPTHESTICK, and stop badgering delete voters; again, we know what your opinion is, you don't need to keep throwing it into people's faces and demanding they change their votes to inaccurate viewpoints. You aren't even reading the sources properly, for goodness' sake, so how can you claim to be right? Washington Times has a wider circulation than some national papers, just because of the number of people in the state. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, because most people are idiots. Anyway, I am reading the sources. That piece was not even written in house. It was an AP wire piece. The Washington Times is a local newspaper to that state. If pieces were persistently appearing in The Times of India, in the BBC, in the ABC, in the CBC, in The Straits Times, The New York Times, that might ensure diverse coverage. Having one AP wire piece that is routine court coverage appear in a regional paper, where the event took place, does not demonstrate WP:DIVERSE coverage. When that AP wire piece makes itself into the online Washington Times, that doesn't mean much. Because, per WP:DIVERSE and WP:DEPTH. Wire pieces do not demonstrate diverse of in-depth coverage. RGloucester — ☎ 16:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fact of life, isn't it? I think we're all aware that there are idiots in the world. I don't think anyone questions that assertion. I can provide sources to back it up, if you'd like (WP:V, and all that). I don't think there is anything uncivil about acknowledging that there are idiots in this world. It is a simply reality, that we must all stomach if we are to get on in this world. Are you trying to hide from it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Policies and guidelines are on my side, in this discussion. No one has demonstrated the WP:LASTING effect of this minor crime, nor WP:DIVERSE and CONTINUED coverage with WP:DEPTH. The fact there are idiots in this world is verifiable. What exactly are you questioning? RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, both of those are AP wires. They are not stories actually appearing, other than because of the wire. They are not in house. Per WP:DEPTH, and WP:DIVERSE, wire stories do not demonstrate diverse or deep coverage. Specifically, the Oregonian AP wire piece is WP:ROUTINE coverage that cannot be used to establish notability, per WP:DEPTH. It does not include any contextual information, and is simply a passing piece of routine court reporting. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editors in Washington, DC, thousands of miles away, made the editorial decision to run an in-depth article about these murders that happened over seven years ago. Prolonged, repetitive Wikilawyering will not make these murderers less notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One article in one paper from a wire does not make WP:DEPTH. Nothing about what've said is "inaccurate". RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The GNG is not met as suggested in the comments above. All of the sources are primary sources reporting on the details of the crime and investigation and trial, and as per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, they are considered primary sources for our notability guidelines, meaning that there is no secondary coverage of the situation. This also fails NEVENT as there's been no demonstration of long-term significance here (particularly considering the small-town nature of this). Perhaps there is a list article on mass killings that this could be redirected to, but that I don't know, but we should not have a standalone article for this. This is what Wikinews is to handle. --MASEM (t) 06:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's long been established that simple reporting of an event without transformative content (analysis, criticism, etc. ) would be a primary source, and thus you have no secondary sources here. The event further fails NEVENT. As such, deletion is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is right in WP:DEPTH – "In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting". RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RGloucester does not mention what WP:NOTABILITY says quite clearly, namely that a topic may deserve an article if "it meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". It says either/or rather than "both/and". In this case, we have a mass murder of six people, covered by newspapers across the country, with coverage extending over seven years. It qualifies for an article under the General Notability Guideline, widely accepted by almost all active editors. To call reporting of a murder of six people "routine" is as absurd as calling the event a "minor crime". The vast majority of crimes are not murders and the vast majority of murders do not involve six victims. Relatively minor crimes are things like shoplifting, burglaries, drunk driving and barroom fistfights. An encyclopedia with nearly 5 million articles and no need to purchase paper and ink can certainly cover mass murders, which are subject to deep academic interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to demonstrate that this incident is "subject to deep academic interest". You've not done so, nor have you demonstrated deep and continued coverage over seven years. It has nothing to do with purchasing ink. It has to do with tabloid journalism, which is not appropriate for an encylopaedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. A murder of six people is routine. People have been murdered since time immemorial. Murder is only notable if the people murdered were significant, if the manner of their murder was significant, or if the murder was a catalyst for some other event. That's not the case here, and no one has demonstrated it as such. It simply does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT.
You've forgotten the most important GNG criteria: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". RGloucester — ☎ 01:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When people say "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I always wonder to myself: "Who said it is?" Everyking (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's only one of the things that Wikipedia is not. Another one is WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 02:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was news? Everyking (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you support keeping this article, you say so. RGloucester — ☎ 02:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I simply support having encyclopedia articles on notable things, no matter when they occurred. Everyking (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedias do not contain articles on minor crimes. RGloucester — ☎ 02:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before being overly-impressed by mention of WP:NOTNEWS, undecided editors should take a look at our Wikipedia Main page, which highlights a section called "In the news", featuring an article about a mass murder as I write. Our main page, our most public and visible face to the world, makes it crystal clear that we DO cover the most important news topics. Then, you can actually read WP:NOTNEWS, which helpfully provides examples of inappropriate news article topics: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Now that we have established that Wikipedia includes articles about notable news topics including mass murders, but not trivial news topics, like routine sports results and celebrity gossip, then we have a grounded basis for evaluating this article. If you truly believe that a mass murder of six people is equivalent to routine announcements about celebrities, then please go ahead and recommend deleting this article. Otherwise, let's keep this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not another !vote) – They are the same, because neither have historical significance. Celebrity gossip, domestic murder...it is all the same sensationalism. "In the news" is in fact very problematic, as most people there do not follow the criteria that it sets for inclusion. It is not supposed to be a showcase for breaking news stories, but that's another kettle of fish. To be clear, no incidents of "mass murder" are currently posted at ITN. In fact, there is an article about a conflict in Assam, whereby around 70–80 people were killed in attacks by militants. That's hardly the same thing as a domestic murder, as it has political and historical implications. India is deploying roughly 10,000 soldiers in response, demonstrating a clear WP:LASTING effect. I can't believe you are even making this comparison. Were 10,000 soldiers dispatched to the scene of this murder? RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is as absurd as it would be if you nominated for deletion every article about an event that did not involve deploying 10,000 soldiers. Would deploying 8,000 soldiers be enough for you? Making that comparison is equivalent to comparing William Henry Harrison to Abraham Lincoln. Of course, the first president I mentioned is nowhere near as important or significant as the second president I mentioned. But both deserve an article in this encyclopedia. Please be aware that one of Wikipedia's main functions is assembling, linking, listing and categorizing various topics to assist and facilitate academic research. Here is a survey article Mass murder, shooting sprees and rampage violence: Research roundup that makes it clear that the study of mass murders is important in academia. We ought to help not hinder such research by keeping and writing articles about mass murders, and a wide range of other topics of academic interest. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't include articles in news stories just because they are in the news, but because they have had some type of significant influence of the world at large, having some type of long and wide-ranging effect. A basic crime like this is neither case. This doesn't prevent listing it and a link to basic news reference in a list of crimes page, but we shouldn't have a full article on it. Note that the line is not always objective, and can be disputed, but this is a situation far from that gray zone, below the normal inclusion guidelines for WP. Wikinews, perhaps, but not an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews is only failed when people don't opt to use it when their content is rejected on Wikipedia. There are a lot of people that do a good job of working on crowd-sourced reporting that their efforts are misplaced when they write at the encyclopedia. And a further benefit is that Wikinews stories can be transcluded back into en.wiki if the story gains notability after the fact. --MASEM (t) 05:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please provide sources showing that this particular crime is of "importance" in academia, or has been the subject of research. As I said before, Wikinews is too highbrow. Go to News of the World! RGloucester — ☎ 04:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the mildness of your recent opposition, RGloucester. Perhaps with hard work I might be taken off your "idiot" list? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear...I don't keep a list. I merely assume that humans are programmed for idiocy. RGloucester — ☎ 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:RS and WP:NOTNEWS. RGloucester — ☎ 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AP's version is also playing across the country [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The AP's version remains a primary source (there's no analysis or criticism about the case, and definitely not from the AP that doesn't engage in that type of journalism most of the time). --MASEM (t) 22:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it doesn't, and all your attempt at backing up your claim did was make it look like it might be routine, not primary. I've never seen anyone, anywhere consider an AP-based source as "primary", other than you in your desperate attempts to delete this article. You and Gloucester are as bad as each other. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no transformation of information here, no commentary of any type; the article simply states that they have their jury now and the trial is going forward, which is routine for any criminal court case. That fails our requirements for secondary sources for the purposes of notability. This is all described in existing policy and guidelines. --MASEM (t) 05:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage over a significant period of time. The article should be expanded to cover the court process since the murders which reached the state supreme court. I am firmly not one of the editors who say "Some editors consider narrative news reports to be primary sources rather than secondary sources." as the WP:EVENT guideline says. Davewild (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2015 (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/2007_Carnation_murders&oldid=1137513874"