Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.84.41.1 (talk) at 05:59, 2 June 2010 (keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Stephen Griffiths

Stephen Griffiths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As somebody who has just been charged with three murders, he is not notable at present, though he may become so. See WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of his unusual self-christened nickname, I specifically googled "crossbow cannibal wiki" to find an article on the guy, hoping to read more without sifting through media filler. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sad to have to go trough theese kind of Afd processes everytime when trying to start a new crime article. Even tough itd sbout s notable case like this. World attention. attention from major news sources. etc etc. I wasnt the one who started this article so i dont know why i got the Afd notice.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he isnt notable then no other serial killer suspect of serial killer is notable. Or do we have some American bias here?--ÅlandÖland (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i was going to do this page myself, but my connection was so shit I couldn't operate wikipedia properly today. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of ongoing news coverage, plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Peter Tobin's case caused a police visit to a UK editor. We are not trained journalists, and someone will make a libellous mistake. Wait until after the trial. JRPG (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I don't think Griffiths himself is notable, but the case itself could be, so perhaps we need to rename it something like Bradford serial murders. A point here though, I'm not certain it's not actually a serial murder case. Wouldn't there have needed to have been five murders for it to be a serial murder case? That's only going to be so if the earlier cases from 1992 and the early 2000s are linked to this one. TheRetroGuy (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happen to have recently discovered that the definition of serial killer used on Wikipedia is at least three murders for psychological gratification, over a period of more than 30 days, with a cooling off period in between them. However we should be using whatever the media is using. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If guilty, he probably passes that definition. He has been charged with three murders and one of the women has been missing for a substantial time. As for the reason why, we're still guessing until any trial. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like this concept but we may still need to be careful. The defence may say they weren't all committed by the same person, we don't know. JRPG (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion no merge is necessary..considering that this Stephen Griffiths has got all the attention on him not the murders itself. Its different in other cases. But here Stephen as a person is what is of interest of the media actually.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally agree, but our policies differ. In theory I could argue too for an IAR simple keep, but renaming and creating an article about the event seems the best option. --Cyclopiatalk 14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would never have been even a issue had this been about an american. which is totally bias. Sad that wikipedia still is america friendly when it comes to crime articles,more than rest of the world.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would never have becomed any discussion about merge or rename had this been about an american serial killer. Totally biased.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Brit. I want it renamed. He hasn't been convicted; he hasn't even been tried for goodness sake. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am an Italian. Living in the UK. Agree with renaming. Your conspiracy theories are nonsense. --Cyclopiatalk 11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - I've been working on this on Wikinews and was surprised it took some time for a WP page to appear. The media coverage has been global (though I confess I've mainly stuck with British sources) and, realistically, serial killer cases are usually notable. However, I also agree that we can't name the page after Griffiths - especially without even a conviction. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename, as I commented on the article's talk page there are enough noteworthy aspects, and enough media reports, to make some article. I've no objections to the rename option, but per ÅlandÖland, in this particular case at this time, I'm not convinced it's the best option. As far as I'm aware, these three alleged murders are only linked through the investigation and charges against this one person. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless he turns out to be a random fantastist with matching DNA, this article is likely to remain of note  BRIANTIST  (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sources like this may prejudice his trial. Although this article does not say he killed them, it is strengthening the link between him and the women. The justice system of this country is based on 'innocent until proven guilty',and the jury will be selected from the general public, who are easily swayed by the media, and a wikipedia page adds sustenance to the prosecution's case, before we even know what the evidence is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycarrie84 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He currently has a really high profile in the Media and thus notability. Also he has become a famous serial killer IJA (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename - on principle, we normally don't name articles about serial killers, particularly when they are current events. We normally name the article after the victim (ie: murder of, killing of, etc), or give it an appropriate title. However, if this series of cases prove both related and significant (they still have not found two of the three bodies), then it should be renamed. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still say keep here. This article subject has becomed ntoable in his own right. To delete seems meaningless.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the trial is ongoing. At the moment he would only be notable by WP:ONEEVENT. Were he to be found innocent, then he's not notable. 91.106.120.165 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form (possibly renamed). I think that other articles tend to entitled as about the murder, rather than its perpetrator (in this case alleged perpetrator). However, multiple murders are particularly notorious. This article will no doubt develop as the trial process develops. At present, he is only an alleged murderer, so that we must be careful. There are severe restrictions on what UK newspapers are allowed to print about a criminal case before there is a conviction. WP should be as circumspect. UK editors are probably subject to the same restrcitions as the press. These are designed to ensure that a person can get a fair trial. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename or delete WP:BLP "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, ... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Currently, as someone who has merely been accused, a standalone article under the name of a living person is unacceptable. Active Banana (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename as 2009-2010 Bradford serial killings or similar; focus on the details of the killings, and keep mentions of Griffiths to a single section (so that it can easily be updated as events progress, without the risk of inadvertently leaving harmful information lying unnoticed elsewhere in the article). I presume the police have explicitly linked the killings - though would we need that to justify us treating them jointly, as they have obviously implicitly linked them by charging one man with the three? Maybe redirect from Crossbow Cannibal and establish a Stephen/Steven/Steve Griffiths disambiguation page as there are now quite a few of them. Barnabypage (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and no need to rename. Clearly has sufficient coverage to be notable and I would argue that renaming to the "event" is more of a BLP issue than making it crystal clear in the article that he is a suspect rather than convicted. If it is renamed, the article will have to be completely rewritten to focus on the murders rather than the suspect. - ukexpat (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - see handling of Steve Wright (serial killer) and Ipswich serial murders. It would be easy enough to spin off a section on Griffiths-the-person (or indeed any other suspect) into a separate article if he is convicted, while keeping the main treatment of the crimes and investigation in the original article. Barnabypage (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is precisely the sort of article that the policy on biographies of living people should be concerned about, as it repeats unproven allegations about a living person which are obviously potentially harmful to that person. We've been sidetracked this year by a handful of disruptive editors (included some admins and at least one steward) into a moral panic about poorly sourced articles saying "Joe Bloggs is a footballer playing for Anytown United" rather than concentrating on the cases, such as this one, that have the potential to cause real, serious, harm. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can we widen this to include Anthony Sowell? Seem to be a similar debate, and the hoops I'm being made to jump through to edit are getting smaller all the time. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment was made by a user who moved Sowell's page so much it got, at my request, move protected. (The first move was to the highly inappropriate and lurid "Ohio House of Horrors.") He has been asked more than once to go to Sowell's talk page and get consensus, so this comment constitutes inappropriate canvassing. Şłџğģő 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have gone with the Imperial Avenue Murders initially, except there was no mention of Imperial Avenue in the article. If House of Horror is so inappropriate and lurid, it's strange that this disambiguation page refers to Rose and Fred West. No-one deemed it necessary to delete that although SluggoOne is about to. SO is trying to suggest that I am unreasonable. The evidence is there for people to make up their own minds. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough plus he has been in media enough for own notability.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_Griffiths&oldid=365583653"