Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Facebook killing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Donotkill (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 19 January 2011 (→‎2011 Facebook killing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2011 Facebook killing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable crime. Media coverage is limited to a few repeated sentences. Renata (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is notable. It is reported on at least 5 continents. In contrast, this crime is not Wikipedia notable http://www.kansas.com/2011/01/19/1681025/armed-man-robs-south-wichita-store.html Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Partly right, partly wrong. The "date is by itself not notable". It is that it is reported in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Australia, etc. that it is notable. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that's been linked to so far has been reprints of the same AP story and a Daily Mail story. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if this were a notable murder, I see no evidence that it is known as the "2011 Facebook killing." That emphasis on the method of contact seems to be a POV slant; I removed the rather atrocious sentence from the article, "This is not the first time that Facebook has been in trouble for a murder." So it seems to be a WP:COATRACK. postdlf (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion, keep the article and discuss a change in article name. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed all but the two unique references. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not destroy the article. You voted for deletion then you start taking stuff out. Contrary to your claim, you did take out unique references. The Nigerian newspaper had more than the others (the beginning of the story was the same but there's several paragraphs added). Also it shows how worldwide the coverage is, USA, Canada, Nigeria, India, UK, Australia, Lithuania, etc. Donotkill (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say each reprint of the AP story is not a unique story. The Nigerian story (I assume you're refering to onlinenigeria.com) was a reprint of the Daily Mail article, the original I did not remove (onlinenigeria.com "By Daily Mail Reporter") OSbornarfcontributionatoration 20:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]