Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tim Bosma

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Relisting this debate has not yielded a clear consensus, and I am not satisfied that will emerge at this time. Please note that I have disregarded any canvassed !votes in coming to this conclusion and also acknowledged the relatively limited interest of one other editor. KaisaL (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tim Bosma

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly, there are glaring grammatical irregularities, subjective irrelevancies and outright inaccuracies in this item. 1. This article's title places focus on the single victim of a murder but the text centers on the perpetrator of the crime. While the victim was no doubt deeply loved and sorely missed by family, friends and by his religious community, pursuant to WP:B101E notability does not rest with a single victim of an single isolated event, nor had this victim acquired notability as a significant achiever in the fields of government, academe, the sciences or the arts. I have seen no evidence that this crime "captivated public attention in Canada for several years" nor was it particularly "notable in other countries" more so than the murder of any other innocent. (according to Stats Canada, Canada had 512 homicides reported in 2013, of which this was but one incident no more and no less tragic and senseless than any other. 2. Arguably, the central player in this murder, with respect to notability, may center not on the victim but on one of the two perpetrators of the crime. Dellen Millard, the son of a family long associated with aviation in Canada was the youngest person in Canada ever to fly a helicopter and a fixed wing aircraft, at the age of fourteen. He and a friend were convicted of the murder of Timothy Bosma in June, 2016. 3. Millard was not convicted of murdering a man "specifically for his Dodge 3500 truck then incinerated the body." Apart from grammar issues with the statement, the subjects at trial were convicted of first degree murder. Full stop. To the extent that their case itself was remarkable, court was convened without benefit of the more usual pre-trial; the two accused stood trial together, both charged together with first degree murder; and both accused stood trial for a crime that had (a) no clear motive (b) no murder weapon and (c) no identifiable body. However, a properly constituted jury found the accused to be guilty of first degree murder, as charged. The make and model of an involved vehicle and reference to disposal of the victim's remains were not part of the verdict. Frankie Z (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is the most notable murder in Canada for the past 3 years or so. This is a notable world murder. Lots of sources. Cappy prose is not a reason for deletion. In fact, I pledge to fix this article after the AfD is a keep but I am not crazy and will not be abused by trying to fix an article and have it destroyed and deleted right away.

People who hate the article and want it deleted should modify the rules so that there are no murder articles or porn star articles in Wikipedia.

As for the original reason, deny the AFD for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Poor prose does not qualify for deletion. Tim Bosnia (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC) — Tim Bosnia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This subject was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bosma. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Thanks for the link that is MORE than 3 years old. This really hits home the point that three years later, it's still so notable. Also note that this article is not a bio as that AFD but about the murder event. Tim Bosnia (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous AfD on the same article subject here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and per previous AfD. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the AFD upon which previous 2 iVotes depend took place a mere month after this murder, and are therefore of little relevance to this AFD, given that in the interim there have been: a trial; a conviction, and accusations that the perps were involved in other murders, one of which is now scheduled for trial in 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

above two votes must be friends, edits the same articles, votes in the same AfD within minutes, citing the same reason that a three year old AfD justifies Delete even though there has been exponentially more coverage in the past three years showing longevity and notability. Wikipedia is not a vote. Tim Bosnia (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For me it is a mystery how the first AfD could end with a delete decision. This article is per right now WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People need to differ between article size and quality, and notability. BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, it's just a one-event, crime-with-local-coverage item. It's just a dog-bites-man story and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for this sort of thing. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate reasons why we need to put the brakes on the instant creation of an article about every individual murder that happens — including, but not limited to, the fact that WP:PERP requires us to pay utmost attention to the WP:BLP sensitivities of naming and discussing an accused murderer who has not yet been proven guilty in a court of law. Now that the conviction has occurred, this is a very different situation than that one was — but it's not our role to make WP:CRYSTAL predictions about a case that's still before the courts, so deletion was the correct response to the situation as it stood in 2013. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "For me it is a mystery how the first AfD could end with a delete decision.", no mystery there, deleted because WP:NOTNEWS Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I already noted, there were legitimate WP:PERP reasons why the article had to be deleted in 2013 — however, now that Millard and Smich have actually been convicted, PERP no longer applies and this now needs to be judged on its own merits rather than being speedied as a recreation of the 2013 version. That said, as things stand right now this fails on the merits: it's an inadequately sourced two-sentence stub, which fails to demonstrate any enduring notability besides "thing that happened". It might be possible to write a good article which was sourced and substanced well enough to demonstrate notability properly — but this article, in this form, ain't it. The test that distinguishes murders that qualify for Wikipedia articles from murders that don't qualify for Wikipedia articles is not the mere existence of coverage, as all murders always get media coverage but we are WP:NOTNEWS — rather, it's whether you can demonstrate a substantive reason why people will still need to read an article about it ten years from now. (Matthew Shepard, for example, is still talked about and analyzed almost twenty years after his death — while thousands of other murders that have happened over the years are not.) But nothing here demonstrates that this passes that hurdle. And I'm also concerned about the creator's username so closely resembling the murder victim's name — implying a vested interest of some kind. So this has to be deleted in this form, although without prejudice against a good, substantive and properly sourced article about it being created in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know Bosma or anyone connected with the family or murder. This article cannot be deleted and permitted to be rewritten better because as soon as it is rewritten, people will say it was deleted before and must be deleted again. I just saw that argument yesterday. Plus the criteria for deletion is not that an article is too short or needs more length. Tim Bosnia (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the criteria for deletion do allow an article to be deleted if it's not even making a credible claim of enduring notability in the first place. "Topic is a person who exists, the end", for instance, is not a keepable article just because our deletion rules don't expressly include the length of the article as a criterion in and of its own — an article does have to be long enough and sourced well enough to at least contain a basic indication of notability. And trust me, I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for well over a decade now — and brand new users who register under usernames that are very nearly identical to the name of topic they've suddenly decided to write about are not "disinterested" parties who only just heard about the topic in question for the first time two days ago. That's simply not a thing that has ever happened on here. You don't have to have known him, or anyone connected to the incident, personally to have some kind of non-neutral agenda about it. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is more than one murder and disappearance case, so this should not only be kept but expanded to other cases connected to the convicts. "Smich and Millard still face charges of first-degree murder in connection with the case of 23-year-old Toronto resident Laura Babcock, who disappeared in 2012. That case is scheduled to go to trial in 2017. Separately, Millard is charged with first-degree murder in relation to the death of his father, Wayne Millard. That matter remains before the courts." There have been a number of recent cases of people being murdered on test drives for no apparent motive other than vehicle theft or the thrill of killing. There is no need to delete this article just because it is no longer recent news, it will be of use years from now for people who want to record and compare similar cases. Huffington Post has been covering this story for multiple years since 2013,and trials are scheduled for next year. No need to delete his useful article on a continuing crime case of the murders of no less than 3 people and 2 convicted suspects. Crimes like these are at least as significant as domestic terrorism cases. Bachcell (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so maybe Millard needs to have a seperate article, this does not mean that this article should be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This is an excellent case of an Internet homicide which has its own article. The truck was for sale online. Bachcell (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this is the case, a sentence or two can be added to the section Notable Internet homicides of Internet homicide only, not all listed there have a seperate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can editors please let this afd run its course as its only got a couple of days to go (unless an admin decides to extend it:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
major event over the last few years but maybe not in the USA. However, this is not USA Wikipedia. Keep . Wawaxi (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wawaxi (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but this is a high-profile murder that has garnered major media coverage across Canada for now over 3 years. Nothing "routine" about it. Passes WP:GNG by dint of in-depth, ongoing, national coverage in major Canadian media [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every murder that has ever happened at all would always get a Wikipedia article if "media coverage exists" were the sole standard that it had to meet. What's necessary to lift it above the bar that divides a notable murder from a non-notable one is evidence that it's special in some substantive way that would get it past WP:10YT, not just evidence that the media covered it in the exact same way that the media cover all murders. And those Google search results aren't indicating that this garnered coverage across Canada, either — I'm not finding any evidence, in fact, that this ever garnered any significant coverage outside of the Golden Horseshoe (even the CBC links I've checked, frex, are all from CBC Toronto or CBC Hamilton rather than the national news division.) Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines produce variable results, of course, but your statement does not match what I saw. So, I double-checked by running a search on the Montreal Gazette, [2]. More to the point, Hamilton is not Toronto. CBC, Globe and Mail, National Post are national media, and I seem to recall hearing CBC coverage broadcast far from the Golden Horseshoe. Moreover, coverage in the Toronto papers and CBC has been far from routine; it has been intensive and has continued for years. I just checked the Ottawa Citizen lost of coverage [3]. Ditto for the Vancouver Sun , [[4]. To be sure, most - though not all - of the coverage outside Hamilton has been sourced to the national media based in Toronto, but that's why The Canadian Press exists; so that the Halifax The Chronicle Herald can run stories about a notorious murder in Hamilton. As here: [5]. In sum: not local, not routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the template at the top of this AFD indicates, this is not a vote and canvassing if anything will only harm the chances of a consensus being formed. That said, even accounting for this, I am happy to give this debate another week so that additional contributors without a vested interest in the topic can make their thoughts known in the hope of a clearer consensus developing. KaisaL (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Steve's Arbitrary Point Threshhold for Notable Events

Let's check Steve's Oversimplification of Wikipedia's Seven Factors of Event Notability™:

Criterion	Value
impact	4
depth	10
duration	10
geographic scope	3
diversity	10
reliability	10
uniquity	3
Total	50

The Steve 08:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is terrible, but the subject matter meets WP:GNG. If the consesnus is the delete, we should consider moving it to draftspace or userspace. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. This is WP:NOTNEWS. Sure, there is some media coverage, but there is almost always going to be routine media coverage of murders. I don't see evidence that there is media coverage above and beyond routine. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the 2nd most high profile murder in Canada in the past decade. Magnotta is the first, this is the second, and Tim McLean is probably the third. Leading contenders also include the serial killer Pickton. Fiona Gump (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I was asked to offer an unbiased opinion and I am not familiar with this murder because it must be obscure and not suitable for an article.Murder is so bad (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Murder is so bad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Murder is so bad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Delete instead for now and Draft later if needed, although I'm not certain how this will actually be anything else improvable later, the current information suggests nothing convincing though. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw a forum post asking for people to evaluate then support a delete vote. I haven't heard of this so it must be insignificant and, therefore, a delete. OK 246320 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — OK 246320 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that OK 246320 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@OK 246320: It's likely you haven't heard of many of the subjects that the over 5 million articles on Wikipedia cover, should we delete all such articles? That is a poor reason for your opinion. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.