Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers

Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers

Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers (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)

Tragic, yes. But entirely run-of-the-mill murder. WP:NOTNEWS. IMO the editor who obsessivlt create these aericlees have a problem. TheLongTone (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: the Riley Ann Sawyers ("Baby Grace") murder is pretty well known and got national attention and coverage. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Strong keep The case received national attention and has quite a bit of notability. My first thought when seeing this nomination was ...really?--GouramiWatcher^Talk 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• note to closing admin this vote was clearly canvassed [1]. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:Canvassing, the notification was appropriate due to my experience with creating and editing articles of the same topic. I also experienced multiple AFD debates after a certain editor nominated several pages on this topic.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 11:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

given your strong interest in the topic don't you always vote keep? Paul Austin has only contacted people that are known to vote keep. LibStar (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Even if I wasn't involved in this type of article writing, I would still vote keep. I recall seeing this story in the news when it first developed and I live across the country from where it happened. --GouramiWatcher^Talk 14:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

do you disagree that Paul Austin has been only notifying known keep voters about this AfD? LibStar (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I only notified *two* people who have been involved with the article, *plus* the WP: CRIME Project. My notifications were all neutrally worded and *did not* ask for keep votes. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

nice try, your message your neutral but you only sent it to known keep voters. as per WP:CANVASS, The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

BabbaQ never edited this article and is known to always vote keep at every single AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. Everyking (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources do not satisfy WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Absolute keep—and the demonstrable lack of AGF in the nom is disturbing ... 🖖ATS / Talk

What is lack of good faith in thinking that people who are obsessively interested in even the dullest murder case have a problem? (I'm far too polite to say they are sickos). The canvassing is disturbing as well.

Of course this got coverage: it's the kind of story that provides the yellow press with what sells their product. Lasting coverage is what is needed to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The only "disturbing" thing here is TheLongTone's lack of civility.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 01:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We right now at this moment have an article at RD about a singer that was shot by a fan. So what is your point really. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

There's little better, TheLongTone, than when someone makes my argument for me. Based on your assumptions, not only is it impossible for the creating editor to have been motivated by making a good encyclopedia article, but that person must be a sicko? And this is from someone with nearly seven years' and 30,000+ edits' worth of experience? You've graduated from AGF territory to NPA with this unfortunate response. 🖖ATS / Talk 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Which reminds me—over the years, I've helped whip into shape the articles of several people who had just died, most recently Christina Grimmie, David Bowie, Bobbi Kristina Brown, James Horner, Leonard Nimoy, Alan Rickman, Skye McCole Bartusiak, Grace Lee Whitney, et al. Am I a sicko? 🖖ATS / Talk 19:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• delete lots of coverage at the time and the trial does not override WP:VICTIM and WP:EFFECT. Nor does getting national coverage. The murder did not itself lead to a lasting effect like a legislation change, major movie or change in judicial or police practice. LibStar (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Your above statement is clearly deletionist WP:IDONTLIKEIT like the nominator. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - the sources speaks for themselves, really good sourcing independent sources. I also think the nom itself is very combative keep to the topic instead of remarking on users that create these kind of articles. Also this is such an obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom. And also Notability is not temporary. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• note to closing admin this vote was clearly canvassed [2]. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, this user, like myself, has quite a bit of experience with these debates on this topic and has continuously brought up valid points, especially how most of these nominations reek of IDONTLIKEIT.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 01:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

BabbaQ always votes keep without fail on AfDs on all topics . why notify someone with a 100%track record for keep? I love how people are trying to disguise this blatantly obvious selective notifying as somehow innocent. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)