709:, and there's no reason to assume that the list is exhaustive. Yeah, I know this could fall under "sensationalist" except for some items written above (and if sensationalism is a problem then we're going to have to start cocking our eyebrows at a lot of content within celebrity articles) that Zunaid admitted could have value. Now, as per the no Keep and Rewrite policy Zunaid has adopted, that is fine and it is his right to do so. I haven't had time to peruse the discussion at the Village Pump, but my opinion on this matter is that if less people simply stopped at giving instructions and more tried to follow through themselves - rather than expecting someone else to step up to the plate and do the dirty work - this would be less of a problem. If you feel strongly that something should be changed, I see no reason why you can't Be Bold and work on it yourself. Anyway, if someone would like to start up a discussion pertaining to getting a
406:- people seem to be thinking that because something is verifiable it must be encyclopaedic. Knowledge (XXG) is not Wikinews and just because something has made news headlines does not make it encyclopaedic. Also, people seem to be overestimating the impact this had in the UK. Tony Blair talks about a lot of things and his word does not bestow notability on something. There are many comparable incidents which do not have articles and which rightly should not have articles. The cases of Margaret Muller, Jonathan Zito, Mohammed Parvaiz and Michael Menson spring to mind. And to better judge the overall impact of this event you may wish to look at this BBC news search result:
447:
someone else kills them? How about the 15,000 US murder victims? 25,000 victims in
Baghdad? 17,000 Colombians? All the references in the article cite news sources. To me that strongly indicates that this is a suitable subject for a news website but not for an encyclopaedia. Likewise with the other cases I mentioned, where if you read what I said you'll say I certainly didn't say I thought they deserved articles.
683:
The conflation and confusion of news notability with encyclopedic notability is a major issue. I agree with Zunaid - almost all articles or reports in news channels are covered by multiple sources so even the most trivial or sensationalist human interest story can get a technical pass of current weak
713:
policy put together, I would be happy to chime in. Some good discussion (IMO) has already taken place here, and if Zunaid can find other instances of similar AfDs, we may already have some precedents. Perhaps we can save everyone from having to resort to these long-winded explanations in the future.
583:
aspects such as: 1. the life details of the victim and murderers (remember: none of whom were notable in and of themselves), 2. the murder itself (this could be summarised, it is presented in FAR too much step-by-step detail), 3. politicians' quotes and 4. memorial funds and such-like. None of these
552:
then, EVERY news item covered by multiple newspapers in EVERY country EVERY day should by rights have an article in the 'pedia, which I'm sure all but the most vehement inclusionists will agree is inappropriate. At its heart, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a news service, and in the absence
203:
I'm a little torn on this one. I'm not convinced this is notable in the grand scheme of things and is only so at the moment because it was a particularly notable murder in London. Looking at the bigger picture, as wikipedia is not a memorial and murders are not an uncommon feature around the world
628:
sources probably have merger potential for an existing article). Now, as for your delete vote - I still don't see any actual deletion criteria being applied here, as even you admit that this subject is encyclopedic in its way, and that the encyclopedic elements are present, although diluted. If you
547:
the subject of "multiple non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources". Even items of merely provincial/state-wide importance (which is not the case here) fall under this description. Also, there are MANY issues which politicians or prominent figures comment on every day, if only for the sake of making a
647:
obviously failing any guidelines. My point about "every news item getting an article" isn't that editors will spend time creating them, it is that once created there is no possibility, via the current guidelines, for deleting them. As for your cleanup suggestion, my personal POV is to never !vote
446:
Was Tom ap Rhys Pryce himself notable? Would he have merited an article if this terrible thing hadn't happened? Think forward a year - will the 700 or so murders that will have happened in the UK in that time have spawned 700 murder victim articles? Does someone automatically become notable if
260:
In the U.S it is "missing white girl" stories which get the big disproportionate big news play, and apparently in
Britain it is "murdered lawyer" which dominates the airwaves. He is still just one man, otherwise apparently non-notable, who was the victim of a street crime by extremely non-notable
124:
This article documents a horrible thing which was a tragedy for all involved, and I don't in any way seek to diminish that. But sadly, the fact is that there are two or three murder victims a week in this country, and only rarely do the circumstances of a murder generate the kind of long lasting
154:
This is the kind of article that tends to develop around a news event. Apparently, when this fellow got killed it was big news, and folks from the UK put up no fewer than 31 reference links to support their account. I would be hesitant to delete such an article, although maybe the biography is
688:
the same thing. News organizations have different functions and rationales from encyclopedias. Every murder or other major crime is serious and a "notable" event for police, the victims, the crime reporters - yes may even be asked in parliament or raised by some politician but that is a routine
638:
The problem is that there are currently no deletion criteria to apply to newsworthy topics. In the absence thereof I (and I'm sure many other editors) have to resort to long-winded arguments such as the above to explain our rationale. Remember the guideline are prescriptive, not descriptive and
487:
Whilst not perhaps meeting criteria of notability if it had occurred in the US, this was a significant event in the UK and led to questions in the House of
Commons and House of Lords regarding increased serious & violent crime in the UK, particularly in areas of London previously considered
684:
general notability guidelines. On another level we also need guidelines (I'm skeptical about leaving anything to "common sense") to start distinguishing between serious news items that are only of news notability and those that are also encyclopedically notable. These are
429:. If this doesn't pass WP:N then I don't know what does. And yes, it is verifiable - that plus the notabilty criteria you forgot to mention in the above comment = encyclopedic. If you feel these other instances deserve articles, then create them. Deleting something that,
753:
where these ides of distinguishing what is newsworth from what is encyclopedic, can be continued. I have borrowed some of the ideas expressed in this debate in creating the first draft of the guideline. Please comment further on the talk page for thatproposed guideline.
261:
robbers. He got his 15 minutes (in this case 3 months) of fame, but in the long run this is still material for
Wikinews, not Knowledge (XXG). Knowledge (XXG) is no the tabloid murder news, and is not a memorial. Large U.S. cities have 1000 such victims a year.
734:
great exposition of the situation Zunaid. Though the list presented by Fabrib isn't designed to be exhaustive, I don't think point 3 is actually correct so that would only leave point 1 which isn't itself an indicator of the notability of this case.
705:, however - comparing this with a trivial or sensationalist "human interest" story isn't really fair, and I say that because this doesn't clear the "multiple independent source" requirement by having only two references - it has upwards of
492:
criteria with regard non-trivial coverage from a number of media sources, where the commentary was based not just on the event, but its social & political implications. '15 -minutes' point covered by 'permanence of notability' of
623:
is created - you make some excellent points (although, in reality, I don't believe it very likely that anyone is apt to waste the time to make articles for "every news item" as you said, and such topics that are actually covered by
584:
things are out of the ordinary for slightly-above-average murder cases (heck, its not out-of-the-ordinary for "lesser" newsworthy events than murder) and do not contribute to raising this article from news to encyclopedia material.
629:
feel the article should be cleaned up, then tag it as such, discuss the issue on the talk page, and/or take a try at reworking the article yourself. Deletion of this article, at this point, would be little more than laziness. --
344:. Multiple reliable citations indicate this was a notable event which received heavy coverage in the UK press, and received the attention of the leader of the country. As such, it's rather similar to Knowledge (XXG)'s article on
648:"keep and rewrite" on AfD's as far too many articles end up being kept without getting the subsequent rewrite done to them (there was some discussion about what to do about "keep and rewrite" on the
701:. It's becoming clear to me that the real problem isn't neccessarily this article, but the lack of applicable guidelines for this type of article. Something should be done about that. In terms of
689:
function of political systems (especially democratic ones) and not automatically an indication of encyclopedic notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not a news report archive or a police report archive
467:
is established with multiple editors bringing consensus (and that really isn't a bad idea, as Zunaid makes some good points below), I feel we should stick by the quidelines we actually have. --
374:
An article with over 30 news articles included for reference is clearly fairly well sourced and meets notability guidelines for verification in multiple (ie more than one) major publications).
117:
345:
216:
and cleanup. This is a notable murder event in the UK. There is a need to cleanup the article. With many sources cited, this has more than enough assertion of notability.
459:. Yeah, I misread that one line, apologies. Anyway, as per the question "Was Tom apRhys Pryce himself notable?" - That is a completely moot point - The article is named
90:
85:
94:
77:
463:. You're making a lot of "I don't like it" sounding arguments, and I still don't see a single guideline referenced in your arguments. Until a separate
529:
guideline, and in the absence of this there will undoubtedly be many AfD's of this nature where deletion arguments can only be based on assertions of
407:
394:
criteria, then how can we ever justify referencing those same guidlelines as reasons to delete truely non-notable and unverifiable content? --
427:
It is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other
409:. The BBC News website alone has had more than 500 articles about numerous murders since this one was last mentioned on 13 December.
17:
619:. OK, you've come up with two latin legal terms, but still no guidelines that actually exist. That said, it probably is high time a
669:
601:
137:
and occurrences like that warrant an article, but I do not think an article on every murder victim is appropriate or desirable.
81:
771:
758:
750:
739:
718:
710:
693:
675:
633:
620:
607:
526:
517:
505:
471:
464:
451:
437:
413:
398:
378:
366:
354:
336:
322:
265:
252:
232:
220:
208:
195:
183:
171:
159:
145:
59:
362:
Well referenced to multiple independent third-party sources. Completely verifiable, and covered well enough to be notable.
241:
664:
596:
571:
and is encyclopedia-worthy. All the other points just add to its newsworthiness, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
786:
36:
460:
73:
65:
285:
It raised the issue of station security and how private companies where failing to keep rail users safe, even having
273:
i wrote most of this myself, so i suppose my opinion doesnt matter but here's some reasons why its obviously notible.
785:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
249:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
575:
to focus more on the encyclopedia-worthy legal aspects of the case/trial, which IMHO are the only things
448:
410:
142:
167:
Enough sources to show it was notable, don't see how the logic of 'just another murder' changes that.--
217:
715:
630:
468:
434:
395:
363:
308:
156:
514:
246:
298:
wrote an article on the issue and spoke out agaiant the governments handling of crime as a result.
56:
141:
states that subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
579:
notable about this event. The problem with this article is that it is majority focused on the
549:
52:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
659:
591:
130:
649:
538:
530:
138:
180:
502:
134:
534:
494:
489:
426:
391:
387:
332:
It was fairly big news in the UK for a while, and provoked a response on many issues.
349:
304:
295:
192:
191:. It needs a good copy edit - some quite badly structured sentences here. 2cents...
126:
292:
The trial was one of the first to have the families of the victim to speak in court.
375:
111:
179:. If Blair said something about it, then yeah, I think that's pretty notable. --
755:
690:
654:
586:
559:
554:
553:
of a news notability guideline, common sense somehow has to prevail. That said,
498:
318:
279:
262:
168:
749:
Per the above comments by several editors, I have created a proposed guideline
768:
286:
229:
736:
543:
333:
205:
541:
argument. The inherent problem with newsworthy topics is that they are
497:. No-brainer, in my opinion. Also, consider comments like those of
639:
exceptions are allowed. This swings both ways: articles may be kept
767:; however it might be more appropriate to move the article to ].
125:
impact on society that would demand an encyclopaedia entry. The
779:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
513:. Seeing the notability criterion used this way makes me sad.
548:
statement to the press and/or to the public. Following the
433:, is less noteworthy does little to solve that problem. --
643:
failing guidelines, and so too may articles be deleted
107:
103:
99:
346:
Public opinion and activism in the Terri
Schiavo case
652:
quite recently which touched on this very problem).
386:If we delete an article that so clearly passes our
51:. Personally suggest the article simply renamed as
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
240:, very well know death and should stay on wiki.--
789:). No further edits should be made to this page.
557:'s points no. 1 and 3 (but IMHO not the others)
8:
278:This was one of the first known cases were
204:I'm not sure that this one will stand out.
282:use was used as eveidence against someone.
501:unhelpful, ad hominem, and ill-informed.
316:Well theres more but should be enough.--
228:, this event has been publicized enough
307:highlighted this case as an example of
533:Wikinews or some sort of hand-waving
301:A charity has been formed as a result.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
563:indicate why this particular murder
289:promise to look into it as a result.
763:I repeat my earlier preference for
24:
751:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (news)
711:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (news)
621:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (news)
527:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (news)
465:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (news)
1:
772:16:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
759:21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
740:21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
719:16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
694:05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
676:09:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
634:15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
608:14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
518:12:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
506:14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
472:15:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
452:11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
438:00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
414:00:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
399:22:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
379:22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
367:21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
355:21:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
337:17:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
323:16:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
266:14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
253:14:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
233:14:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
221:12:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
209:11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
196:10:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
184:03:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
172:02:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
160:02:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
146:01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
60:03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
488:'safe'. It also meets all
461:Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce
74:Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce
66:Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce
806:
525:At the moment there is no
782:Please do not modify it.
569:from a legal perspective
550:letter of the guidelines
32:Please do not modify it.
573:Delete unless rewritten
351:Firsfron of Ronchester
309:Institutional racism
53:Tom ap Rhys Pryce
797:
784:
672:
667:
662:
657:
604:
599:
594:
589:
577:encyclopedically
352:
321:
244:
131:Yorkshire Ripper
115:
97:
48:
34:
805:
804:
800:
799:
798:
796:
795:
794:
793:
787:deletion review
780:
716:Antepenultimate
670:
665:
660:
655:
631:Antepenultimate
602:
597:
592:
587:
469:Antepenultimate
435:Antepenultimate
431:in your opinion
396:Antepenultimate
350:
317:
242:
88:
72:
69:
46:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
803:
801:
792:
791:
775:
774:
761:
743:
742:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
611:
610:
520:
508:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
449:Worldtraveller
441:
440:
417:
416:
411:Worldtraveller
401:
381:
369:
357:
339:
326:
325:
313:
312:
302:
299:
293:
290:
283:
275:
274:
268:
255:
235:
223:
211:
198:
186:
174:
162:
143:Worldtraveller
135:Harold Shipman
122:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
802:
790:
788:
783:
777:
776:
773:
770:
766:
762:
760:
757:
752:
748:
745:
744:
741:
738:
733:
730:
720:
717:
712:
708:
704:
700:
697:
696:
695:
692:
687:
682:
679:
678:
677:
674:
673:
668:
663:
658:
651:
646:
642:
637:
636:
635:
632:
627:
622:
618:
615:
614:
613:
612:
609:
606:
605:
600:
595:
590:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
561:
556:
551:
546:
545:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
516:
512:
509:
507:
504:
500:
496:
491:
486:
483:
482:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
412:
408:
405:
402:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
380:
377:
373:
370:
368:
365:
361:
358:
356:
353:
347:
343:
340:
338:
335:
331:
328:
327:
324:
320:
315:
314:
311:in the media.
310:
306:
305:Sir Ian Blair
303:
300:
297:
296:David Cameron
294:
291:
288:
284:
281:
277:
276:
272:
269:
267:
264:
259:
256:
254:
251:
248:
245:
239:
236:
234:
231:
227:
224:
222:
219:
215:
212:
210:
207:
202:
199:
197:
194:
190:
187:
185:
182:
178:
175:
173:
170:
166:
163:
161:
158:
153:
150:
149:
148:
147:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:Moors murders
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:Mailer Diablo
54:
50:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
781:
778:
764:
746:
731:
706:
703:this article
702:
698:
685:
680:
653:
650:Village Pump
644:
640:
625:
616:
585:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
558:
542:
523:Metacomment:
522:
510:
484:
456:
430:
422:
403:
383:
371:
359:
341:
329:
270:
257:
237:
225:
213:
200:
188:
176:
164:
151:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
567:is notable
560:prima facie
555:user:Fabrib
511:Strong keep
485:Strong Keep
280:Oyster card
271:Strong Keep
218:Terence Ong
201:Weak Delete
155:overblown.
535:notability
364:Geuiwogbil
287:Tony Blair
181:Dennisthe2
157:YechielMan
515:Hesperian
503:Scandrett
626:multiple
544:de facto
193:SeanMack
118:View log
747:Comment
732:Comment
699:Comment
681:Comment
645:without
641:despite
617:Comment
457:Comment
423:Comment
404:Comment
376:Dugwiki
250:Collins
189:Comment
91:protect
86:history
756:Edison
707:thirty
691:Bwithh
539:WP:BIO
531:WP:NOT
499:Edison
263:Edison
258:Delete
169:Dacium
139:WP:NOT
95:delete
769:LHOON
319:Fabio
247:kully
230:LHOON
152:Keep.
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
765:Keep
581:news
565:case
495:WP:N
490:WP:N
392:WP:V
390:and
388:WP:N
384:Keep
372:Keep
360:Keep
342:Keep
330:Keep
238:Keep
226:Keep
214:Keep
177:Keep
165:Keep
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
55:. -
737:MLA
714:--
686:not
661:aid
656:Zun
593:aid
588:Zun
537:or
334:RHB
206:MLA
116:– (
49:eep
425:.
348:.
133:,
129:,
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
671:®
666:©
603:®
598:©
243:S
120:)
114:)
76:(
47:k
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.