Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene Downes

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 Delete. Srikeit 09:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charlene Downes

Murdered child - it was reported in the newspapers - no evidence of any notability besides. If there is, then write an article on the murder, not a biography of the victim. Please delete. -Doc^g 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete nothing paticuarly notable - unless there was an uproar over the girl getting served in food. Definitely not worthy of a bio, perhaps if someone wanted to write something on the the murder and surrounding events. Viridae ^Talk 23:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT for memorialising. Eddie.willers 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and expand. This site, while not reliable in itself, has references to a large number of useful reliable sources talking about this case, and also about allegations that there was more to this case than a simple murder and that involved a ring of child prostitution. The case has also been used as propoganda by the British National Party. Definitely a notable murder case. JulesH 16:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't see what the nominator's concern is, by the way. This is clearly an article on the murder, not a bio of the victim, as it contains no information about the victim beyond her date of birth (her age is relevant, as the perpetrator allegedly had sex with her despite her being under the age of consent). The rest of the information is all directly relevant to the murder. The article definitely does not involve itself in anything that could be described as "memorialising". JulesH 16:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and expand The nominator seems to be getting confused with biographical articles and murder articles this is clearly and murder article and as such need keeping and expanding. The article did cause a lot of local and national concern about an number of issues and caused widespread disgust when the BNP ran with the story.Lucy-marie17:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Ok, expand away and post5 the diffs before and after the expansion so people can evaluate. Viridae ^Talk 01:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall expand after this AfD has closed.--Lucy-marie 15:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article and the others in the series, all written in order to promote a BNP campaign and to advance racial hatred, should (I nearly said will) be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete People are murdered every day, other than the soapboxing by a far right party which doesn't prove notability. there's no evidence of the significance of this one. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CommentCurrently the trial of the accudsed murderers is going on and the details of how she was allegedly murdered make the crime naotable.

Comment See WP:NOT#IINFO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't get what you want me to look for as it dose not fall under memorialising or any of the other sections.--Lucy-marie 16:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Number 10 - News reports. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With a bit of work and when the trial has finished enough information will be out there and more will come to light on the circumstances and more information making notability even more prevelant than it is now should come to light so at the moment It may or may not be affected by point ten but after the trial it should not be affected by that point.--Lucy-marie 16:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Classic coatrack article. Delete as not notable, we are not the newspaper and we are not a memorial site, and this article does a disservice to her living relatives. If you MUST, update the article on the BNP to include mention of this but that's it. To Lucy-Marie: An AfD is the time to expand an article to address concerns raised if you can. Vague promises of expansion after the AfD typically hold no truck with anyone. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this is a WikiNews story, not an encycloapedia article. The case has no known lasting cultural or historical significance. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment This is not a coatrack article it is being covered by major news corporations such as the BBC. Cultural significance etc this does not need that as the event is verifiable from independant secondary sources.--Lucy-marie 18:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete this news item not even pretending to be a biography of an encyclopedic person. Jkelly 01:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coment not a news item it is a murder article.--Lucy-marie 09:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT and I'd agree with the coatrack article remark. --Fredrick day 10:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and Expand This is not a coatrack, nor, although it is currently in the news because of the trial, is it simply a passing news item. I have some sympathy with the view that the article might be better titled 'The Murder of Charlene Downes' for that is what makes her life of significance to the wider encyclopaedic audience. And it is potentially very significant since it is a particularly casual racist murder involving inadvertent cannibalism by third parties. The case is potentially explosive in current British society and may be well mark a turning point in UK race relations. The fact that the likes of the BNP may benefit from the backlash is no reason for suppressing the article. Edwin Greenwood 14:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great if it is potentially explosive and "may be well mark a turning point in UK race relations", you'll be able to supply multiple independent sources to that effect. --Fredrick day 14:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: classic coatrack article which is hardly "potentially explosive in current British society" given that hardly anyone outside Lancashire seems to have even heard of her. —Phil | Talk 15:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody outside Lancashire has heard of her because, apart from one article in the Manchester edition of Metro, the mainstream media have studiously ignored the case. It is only now that the matter has come to trial that a limited amount of national attention has been generated. Edwin Greenwood 10:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

so that's "I have no sources that provide notability or cultural impact but I do have a crystalball?" --Fredrick day 10:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. The murder case is not terribly notable; the victim is not notable (or encyclopaedic) at all. ElinorD (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and Expand Notable as a paedophilic rape and murder a a young school girl. The main suspect currently on trail has been accused of dispossing of the body through cannibalism. On all counts this is more 'horrific' and notable than the Anthony Walker murder which has a long wikipedia entry.Tottenhamlad 09:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NOT a memorial. Kusma (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many times this is not a biography or a memorial--Lucy-marie 09:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.