Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Born1913 (talk | contribs) at 03:02, 1 December 2007 (→Emily Sander). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Emily Sander


Emily Sander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Notability not established, just another unfortunate murder WWGB 22:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop your uncivil tone Mikkalai, it's not helping you or your case any. — Save_Us_229 00:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teach your buddies manners first. What exactly uncivil in my text? `'Míkka>t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'll hope you also realize that court transcripts and police reports are primary, not reliable, sources. The comparison doesn't hold. Someguy1221 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes reliable they are. Please learn how primary sources are used in wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 00:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know how they're used. I just hope that you know they don't prove notability, and they aren't used as sources for BLP information (the perp, for that part). Someguy1221 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They can be reliable Mikkalai, but they are not prefered over news sources. If you had nothing but primary sources and it was fair quailty it might be acceptable, but secondary sources are far prefered over things like court transcripts and police reports, which are hardly anything to make an article out of. This individual was reported from multiple secondary sources, so your argument about police reports and court transcripts is moot. — Save_Us_229 00:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have an article on Natalee Holloway? Sometimes the level of media coverage makes someone notable. This person has 1,600+ Google news results at last count... I have no idea if they'll get the absurd level of coverage needed to justify long-term importance, nobody does. But "when in doubt, don't delete" was the foundation of deletion policy on Wikipedia... some of us still believe in that for the most part. Waiting a few weeks avoids needless drama here... --W.marsh 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, is any of her nude stuff still available? (I mean that on that level, for what I literally said, and nothing more, with no intended implications - I'd just like an answer).-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read 'Not Memorial: Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. This is an individual who's murder has been published by secondary news sources and is written in a neutral point of view. So how does this article fall under 'Not Memorial' again? — Save_Us_229 00:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - both sides are calling for a "speedy" conclusion. There's no need for that. There's obviously a debate here, so unless there's a violation of core policy do this very very slowly over 5 days.--Docg 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I quote from the oft-cited WP:NOTNEWS: "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial". There appear to be substantial sources that likely establish notability per WP:BIO. I agree that a future analysis of the sources may be appropriate and a lack of any further coverage could merit deletion. A WP:NOT#MEMORIAL argument seems silly to me, as it clearly indicates that demonstrated notability trumps any "memorial" concerns. This article meets absolutely none of the speedy deletion criteria, so those are poor quality recommendations in my opinion. — Scientizzle 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikinews & delete A sad story indeed, but odds are good that in a month this will be forgotten. She is not notable as a porn star & being murdered does not confer notability. will381796 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the moment, this has failed to establish itself as being more notable than any other murder. I don't disagree that there's potential there for this to become a drawn-out, tabloid-esque drama -- but it's not yet, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. The comparison to Natalie Holloway is a good example of how an article like this became significant enough to merit an article. If it becomes more significant in the future, great -- the content will be preserved in the logs. For now, it needs to go. Tijuana Brass 00:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This is news and as such belongs in wikinews. Who was Emily before she was killed? I'm not a rabid wikipedian. I don't know all the policies, etc. But as I read the article, the first thought I had was 'Why is this here?'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.56.191 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete for now. Although I usually defend articles like this, it has only been in the news for a week and has a very high likelihood of fading from memory after the case is officially solved. Unless something big happens in the case, I would just chalk this up as another instance of missing white woman syndrome (maybe the proper place for mention of her).Sectryan 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had just about enough of political correctness. She is notable because she was in a small community which all came to protect one of their own, not due to race. Sure, some may not like the article, but Wikipedia reports on notable events and the high amount of media coverage more than exceeds the notability guidelines. Saying it should be deleted because of the supposed missing white women syndrome is the worst reason I have seen. EgraS 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the speedy delete criteria, I'm just applying WP:IAR in this case. The article isn't encyclopaedic, it adds nothing of value, it is a relatively minor news story about a murdered young woman. Its creation in my opinion does more harm than good. RMHED 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emily_Sander&oldid=174976345"