Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:27, 15 June 2016

Murder of Riley Ann Sawyers

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

note to closing admin this vote was clearly canvassed [1]. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Those individuals were all notable well before their death, and in fact their deaths were completely irrelevant to their notability. This child was not notable before she died. She's not notable now. Her death isn't notable. Tragic, yes. Not notable. Risker (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point, Risker, but thanks. 🖖ATS / Talk 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

hardly. it is based on clear guidelines for criminal events. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
note to closing admin this vote was clearly canvassed [2]. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't know that as i don't usually hang around AfDs. You are also invoking personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. Knock it off. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should knock off any notifying of others of AfDs. It's not personal attack, it's bordering on blatant breach of WP rules, if you continue, expect an WP:ANI for canvassing. I have to say your excuses/reasons are far from convincing best to knock it off and stop notifying others. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an ANI may also be appropriate for the nominator here. It's fine to have an opinion, yet this user continues to be disrespectful (here's a shining example) when a nomination doesn't go his way.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 03:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill murder similar to dozens if not hundreds a year in the US alone. There's nothing special here. No laws were changed. No child protection policies were affected. It was such an un-notable murder that the coroner allowed cremation of the body before the trial. No death penalty was sought (in Texas!) so it was not considered a particularly heinous crime. Seriously, there's nothing at all notable about this murder. Tragic, yes. Not notable. Risker (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After doing a quick Google search, I discovered this case is more notable than I had previously thought. Nationwide coverage from reliable sources, such as CNN and USA Today gave reports. Furthermore, the case also was detailed on an episode of Investigation Discovery in 2011 (clearly, the notability didn't end back in '07, as the nominator describes) and an island was also named for the girl. To top it off, she also got international recognition when twenty foreign countries participated in a series of memorials for the victim. As far as the whole "no death penalty" argument, the subjects pled guilty to avoid being sentenced to death. Definitely not a "run-of-the-mill murder." Notability is clearly there; I rest my case.--
GouramiWatcher^Talk 04:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Neither of the murderers pled guilty, Gourami Watcher - both of them had full trials and were convicted by juries. Neither of them were sentenced to death, which may actually be the most notable thing about this murder, that it wasn't considered heinous enough for the death penalty in Texas. And please don't bold little bits of your comments. People in 20 countries released balloons protesting child abuse in her honour; that's not the same as "international recognition". Risker (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea why you would say it is not run-of-the-mill. Almost every American child murder I can think of (and scarily just sitting here I can think of at least 50) gets this kind of attention. It's perfectly standard response. Of course if this child was in India, or Sri Lanka, or anywhere in Africa, not a single Western media outlet would have even noticed. It's not at all an unusual child murder, and it's getting exactly the kind of media attention that is perfectly typical for murders of American children. Risker (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, there are few cases where a child's unidentified body is the subject of massive media coverage (Riley's and Bella Bond's are the two that had such a large effect). There are even fewer where a child that age is even identified, not to mention, after a relative halfway across the country recognizes a composite sketch.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 04:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would say such a thing. Massive media attention is commonplace in the case of unidentified murdered children. Risker (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There really is not - there are tens of thousands of cases and a select few are lucky to get local and statewide attention. Through my research after creating several articles on the topic, there are so many other cases that have one or two primary source entries (in NamUs, The Doe Network or a sheriff department website page). Riley Ann's got so much more than that.--GouramiWatcher^Talk 05:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

this is where a lot of confusion happens with murders in WP, getting "lots of coverage" in "national sources" does not automatically translate into a WP article, there needs to be a long term WP:EFFECT of the crime that trumps WP:GNG besides capture and sentencing of murderer. otherwise every murder that hits national news in every country gets a free pass WP article. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So by your narrow definition, we shouldn't have an article on the Black Dahlia. After all by your standards she is not notable as most people today would have no idea who she is or that she was murdered. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good old WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She gets coverage 60 years after her death so easily meets WP:LASTING. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Risker. No WP:LASTING consequence; no WP:PERSISTENCE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar: I assume you are replying to me, above; but feel free to put your comments all over the shop. Re: WP:LASTING is not defined by the fact that it gets 'mentioned' X-years later It has to provide " a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance." Which this does not do. Cheers, _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not replying to you but the example cited by Paul of Black Dahlia. LibStar (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood... I'll have WP:TROUT for lunch then

_Muffled ^Pocketed 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment quite hilarious that in a desperate attempt to avoid being sanctioned for canvassing Paul Austin decides to "self report" himself on WP:ANI. an admin that removed the self report clearly sees through this and tells Paul Austin not to treat admins as stupid. Paul, suggest you knock it off. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself. LibStar (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has no bearing on this AFD. Please, no more pointless commentary like this. Keep on topic. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Everyone - comment on content, not people. Stop making accusations and slights on other people's editing. Even with canvassing, make a note, leave a dif, and be done. The closing Admin can decide whether or not they find it to be canvassing. I have no stance in this deletion discussion, I'm just saying no more discussing other's editing habits. Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt to self report is highly relevant as an admittance of canvassing. AfDs would be a lot better without canvassing. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then point it out and be done. None of all of this "isn't this hilarious" crap in between. You're just muddying already murky waters in this discussion with taunting like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a taunt . You should also declare that you found this discussion because BabbaQ contacted you. Yes we have interacted before but because he does not like me may be part of his motivation. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: ...perhaps you would prefer some WP:OTHERPARENT then :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 :: The attempt to self report is highly relevant as an admittance of canvassing. AfDs would be a lot better without canvassing. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 :::Great, then point it out and be done. None of all of this "isn't this hilarious" crap in between. You're just muddying already murky waters in this discussion with taunting like that. [[User:Sergecross73|<span style="color:green">Sergecross73</span>]] [[User talk:Sergecross73|<span style="color:teal">msg me</span>]] 13:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
+It's not a taunt . You should also declare that you found this discussion because BabbaQ contacted you. Yes we have interacted before but because he does not like me may be part of his motivation. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 13:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 :::{{reply|Sergecross73}} ...perhaps you would prefer some [[WP:OTHERPARENT]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&diff=725402666&oldid=725386878 then]  :)  [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<sub>'''<font color="green">Muffled<font color="green"></font></font>'''</sub>]] <sup>'''''[[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<font color="red">Pocketed</font>]]'''''</sup> 13:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)