356:
major news sources. The emphasis on the article on details of crimes, the attitude involved in a sentence that "There was, however, no evidence of any sexual assault, torture or any marks found on Chanel's body. ", and the extensive content about identifying marks that might aid the investigation indicate a degree of soapboxing. But the subject is notable nevertheless, and should be judged on its own distinctive merits independently of the other contributions or motivation of the author. Of the 500 murders or so in NYC, some are notable--the argument that we cant include 500 should not be used to say that we can't include the notable ones that have the most public attention for particular reasons.
305:
the fate of her killer is of but passing interest; the world has moved on without her. Shocking, harsh judgment from me, and I know I sound heartless. But
Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial; Knowledge (XXG) is not a random collation of trivia and most murder victims in this world are non-notable - they're just victims
181:
Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" β while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others.
69:
is a mere restatement of the applicability of
Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does not actually furnish an independant rationale for deletion. The only remaining argument for deletion is the purely subjective assertion that this person is non-notable, which fails to
304:
has put into this is noted and appreciated by me and others. Nevertheless, this article is just about a woman who was murdered - a statistic, if you like. The world/country/state was unaware that she lived in the first place; her death seems to have made temporary headlines and then faded from view;
355:
Looking at the article, there is some distinctive features besides the general age of the victim. This is a case where the question has been raised publicly by prominent public figures about the degree of public and police attention to the murder of people of different races--and widely reported in
185:
I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic
309:
this world. Without something to make a victim stand out from the hundreds upon hundreds of US/worldwide murder victims each year (eponymous law, weeks/months of coverage of the disappearance, drama/documentary for a non-minority channel being made, etc) then this is another NN, with
167:, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.
242:
that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so β while it shouldn't affect your decision β bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it.
318:
on the "impact" of the killing must be ignored. This is an encyclopaedia. For transparency, iridescent and I have discussed this in the past and directly before I commented; I previously agreed with this AfD and spoke about it on the
323:
discussion which was started to try to avoid offending the author before this came to AfD; nevertheless, I have re-read the article and this AfD before posting and my views have not changed/have been reinforced.
223:
whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated β remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also,
175:
178:(archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
156:
343:- Not a memorial applies in this instance. There is nothing about this particular murder that distinguishes it from others. Sad though that may be. --
129:
124:
326:
This same text appears elsewhere; this is because it applies elsewhere too and this is convenient for me. No summary judgement has been made.
133:
235:
116:
17:
201:
382:
36:
65:
actually states that "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." Thus,
367:
347:
335:
292:
275:
262:
97:
78:
381:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
229:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
271:
I'm the creator of this work so, unless Chanel's family "weighs-in" and says otherwise, I vote to keep this.--
120:
71:
54:
49:: as this article cites significant coverage of its subject in multiple, third party reliable sources in
254:
301:
272:
225:
112:
104:
50:
220:
330:
163:
This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
182:
The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
288:
320:
311:
189:
164:
66:
62:
58:
246:
315:
363:
283:. Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial, and notability seems strained to non-existent.
75:
150:
284:
207:, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage
94:
344:
358:
375:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
61:
has also been advanced as an argument for deletion. However,
53:, this person is presumed to be notable per Knowledge (XXG)'s
70:
overcome the presumption of notability conferred by the
239:
146:
142:
138:
86:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
385:). No further edits should be made to this page.
314:concerns for their family to be considered too.
196:prohibit the writing of articles about victims
8:
176:a very lengthy discussion of these articles
170:This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:
219:And please try to keep this discussion
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
165:Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial
51:Chanel_Petro-Nixon#External_links
93:in light of non-admin closure.
1:
368:23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
348:20:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
336:21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
293:19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
276:19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
263:23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
98:20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
79:01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
72:general notability guideline
55:general notability guideline
402:
74:as previously described.
378:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
174:There has already been
334:isn't wearing pants
302:User:MurderWatcher1
113:Chanel Petro-Nixon
105:Chanel Petro-Nixon
327:
316:Original research
259:
393:
380:
325:
261:
255:
252:
249:
214:
154:
136:
34:
401:
400:
396:
395:
394:
392:
391:
390:
389:
383:deletion review
376:
250:
247:
244:
208:
190:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
127:
111:
108:
67:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
63:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
59:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
45:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
399:
397:
388:
387:
371:
370:
350:
338:
295:
278:
273:MurderWatcher1
226:MurderWatcher1
217:
216:
187:
183:
179:
161:
160:
107:
102:
101:
100:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
398:
386:
384:
379:
373:
372:
369:
365:
361:
360:
354:
353:Keep and edit
351:
349:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
332:
322:
317:
313:
308:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
279:
277:
274:
270:
267:
266:
265:
264:
260:
258:
257:(talk to me!)
253:
241:
237:
234:
231:
227:
222:
215:in the media.
213:
212:
206:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:
184:
180:
177:
173:
172:
171:
168:
166:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
106:
103:
99:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
82:
81:
80:
77:
73:
68:
64:
60:
56:
52:
48:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
377:
374:
357:
352:
340:
329:
306:
297:
280:
268:
256:
232:
218:
210:
209:
204:
197:
193:
169:
162:
91:no consensus
90:
46:
44:
43:
31:
28:
300:. The work
89:by DRV to
211:over time
186:problems;
236:contribs
221:WP:CIVIL
157:View log
87:modified
331:REDVEΠ―S
130:protect
125:history
85:Result
76:John254
341:Delete
321:WP:ANI
312:WP:BLP
298:Delete
285:Stifle
281:Delete
240:stated
238:) has
202:WP:BIO
198:per se
134:delete
251:scent
248:iride
192:does
151:views
143:watch
139:links
95:Xoloz
16:<
364:talk
345:Whpq
289:talk
269:Keep
230:talk
205:does
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
47:keep
359:DGG
245:β
194:not
155:β (
57:.
366:)
328:β
307:of
291:)
200:.
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
362:(
287:(
233:Β·
228:(
159:)
153:)
115:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.