Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.124.109.67 (talk) at 20:37, 11 March 2008 (→‎Lauren Burk: I don't think it is appropriate to move this comment as vandalism. It might not be. Also, doing so makes the subsequent comments appear to say something that they do not.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lauren Burk

--KEEP--This article may have encyclopedic value considering the legal system, incarceration, punishment, and crime wave in America.

Lauren Burk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Subject only notable for being murdered. See WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Lauren Burk is a symbol of racial hate crimes perpetrated by Negroes against European-Americans. This is the largest subset of said crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.9.247 (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - This reeks of WP:POINT. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Note that nearly every edit this IP has made is vandalism. Flash94 (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep You hit the nail on the head. She is indeed notable for being murdered, so why put an AfD for it? There are over 1000 news articles on Lauren Burk, and the case has attracted immense attention. The media has already decided on the importance of this case, and it's not up to Wikipedian editors to say anything. EgraS (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", and WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. For some reason, Wikipedia is becoming a database of obituaries. See: Eve Carson 24.124.109.67 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's informative enough and very notable, I don't see a reason why it should be deleted other than the fact someone is being stubborn on what they don't think is worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article. --Jammy (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EgraS.--Oldak Quill 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notable for only one event. If the event itself becomes sufficiently notable, create an article for it. --Zantolak (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In the absence of a guideline for crime articles, I prefer that some significance beyond just grabbing headlines be demonstrated. This appearing to be a sad, all-too-common random robbery, it's just a burst of news that will soon dissipate. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, Keep "All-too-common" indeed, the usefulness of information of this kind is to prevent similar incidents. Within academia is the field of criminology and crime prevention, and more and/or different information is known of this case than that of Natalee Holloway or Eve Carson as of this posting. If it's found that a parking lot is inadequately lit or that college students away from home are an easy target like sailors in a strange port, then lets see where the information takes us. I would like to see a lot more info on this case than is submitted, but local authorities may be saving some of that for trial. Not all info is useful to all people.Sparree (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here we go again. More MWWS. Seems we have to have an article on every pretty murder victim. What's notable? WWGB (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For all the above reasons. Also, this WP:POINTy article's creator and principle editor is an alleged sockpuppet of an editor whose interests include pretty white women killed by Black men. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Malik, I never thought you were a conspiracy nut in league with Flash. I can also accuse you or anyone on the userpage of any offense and mention it every time you post anything. This topic is of significant interest in the American media and has thousands of news articles on it and is head and shoulder, root and limb above the rest of the murders. EgraS (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In the very first line (above), the person who proposed this deletion admits that the subject is notable. Notable for her death, yes --- but nonetheless notable. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Poor phrasing isn't the same as the nominator asserting notability. The only claim to notability is dying. That is far different than being notable for dying. Murders are very common, they alone do not make an individual notable. Resolute 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, come on. Let's all stop pretending that this is just like any other murder in the USA. There were how many hundreds (or thousands?) of murders in the USA in the past week/month/year? How come we all know this name? And we don't know the other hundred/thousand names? This murder is different, period. Whether or not it deserves to be is an entirely different issue. We at Wikipedia cannot dictate to ABC and CBS and NBC and Fox and (etc.) what they should be noting in their news broadcasts. Someone somewhere (God knows who) has decided that this is one of the notable murders from the hundreds and thousands that occurred. So be it. It's notable and we can cover it. Your head is in the sand if you can say with a straight face that this murder has received the same news coverage (read "notability") as any other run-of-the-mill murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • Oh, come on yourself. The only reason many people here ever heard of Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote an article and most of us are trying to have it removed because the subject lacks sufficient notability. It's just NOT that different, period. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow! Like the previous post says, get your head out of the sand. And quick. Your comment is laughable. Go and re-read it. The only reason that millions of Americans have heard about Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote a Wikipedia article on it. That's your claim? That remark is so ignorant, it warrants no reply. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete because wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Quale (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quale's comment TaintedZebra (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --70.188.129.189 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Deor (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Remember that the notability standards really don't include people notable just for one thing, for one event; and passing interest (as evidenced in the article) in the death of an otherwise typical college student surely isn't enough to guarantee notability. This isn't Natalie Holloway. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, OK. So please explain to all of us how and why Natalie Holloway is different. No one in the world ever heard of her until she was murdered. And she was a high school kid, to boot. So, how indeed is that different than this case? I'm real curious. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment There is a concurrent debate going on with very similar facts to the ones here. 24.124.125.33 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came to Wikipedia direct from Google to look up Lauren Burk. If Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, it should keep this article. If it calls itself an academic encyclopedia, this is different. If you delete this, you should delete all porn stars, all politicians (except Presidents, Prime Ministers, and major Senators), delete Jimbo Wales (just a minor internet figure - half joking!), etc. You may say that other crap does not justify this article but this article is not crap and other articles set the standard. This article is also important as one of a series of similar murders during a time frame. If you want to combine articles, that's ok but a little confusing....People say notability. Well, that's the notability, similar crimes over a similar time. Otherwise, an isolated killing isn't always noteworthy, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) — Keepkeepkeep (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • WP:WAX. The existence of, and claims to notability of other articles has no relevance at all to this article. It has to stand on it's own merits. And I fail to see how a news story fits in with an "academic encyclopedia." Wikinews is the project you are looking for. Resolute 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every murder victim is notable enough for WP? I don't think so. Fail to see what this article is doing here. WikiNews, okay. Wikipedia, no. Rien Post (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhhhhh. Who said every murder victim? Seems like those are your words, no? And that's painting with a pretty broad brush. And if that's what you are resting your argument on, that's evidence enough of the weakness of your argument. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Like an obit. Renee (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has sufficient notability per guidelines. SuMadre (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is sadly, but she is only one of many crime victims. --Paukrus (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crime blog. Per WP:ONEEVENT ,WP:NOT#NEWS , and the essay WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale of Sparree, and to the conspiracy theorist, if the shoe fits... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I considered the suggestion from Sparree that this information might be useful for analysis of crime patterns but am not convinced. Such analysis would require a more comprehensive list of crimes. Matchups (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to mention that if we were to do such an analysis, it would be WP:OR, while if we were to cite someone else's analysis, we certainly would not title the article as "Lauren Burk". Resolute 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per everyone else. --Philip Laurence (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's very sad that this young lady has been murdered, but if being murdered is a criteria for notability, Wikipedia would be full of such notables. This is not an obit site. yorkie19 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, a non-argument ... grasping at straws. I don't hear anyone saying "being murdered is a criteria for notability". If that is your argument, where are you hearing that concept being advocated by "the other side" of the argument? Clearly, it's not her murder per se ... we can all agree that thousands are murdered. It's the impact / news / reception / coverage / reaction of the murder that makes it worthy of note. Why do people make such broad and sweeping claims (much like yours) that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand? Seriously? Who in the world ever said "every single murder, period, warrants an article"? Who said that? What a weak argument. It's not even an argument. Or, a position, for that matter. I will placate you, though. Yes, I agree with you. It is true that being murdered is not a criteria for notability. Got that out of the way. Happy now? Now, moving on productively, what does that have to do with this debate at hand? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge with Mourning Sickness. This victim, nor this murder seem to be notable. Rather, the REACTION to them is notable. Rooot (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Great girl, but not notable. - auburnpilot talk 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIOE. Being killed may be newsworthy, but does not have a historical impact. Notability is not temporary. Will she be notable in ten years? Probably not. Reywas92Talk 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP because this is a subset of "college campus murders," which are a cultural phenomenon that has increased in number in recent years and is worthy of discussion/study/analysis. Mooveeguy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't even murdered on a college campus. so that argument to keep is rather obtuse. WWGB (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, keep it as an example of Missing White Woman Syndrome. How can anyone enter that debate without examples to reference? Mooveeguy (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lauren_Burk&oldid=197557567"