Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelika Kluk

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 keep and rename.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Kluk

Angelika Kluk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)

Prodded with a reason "Being a victim does not make one notable.". Prod removed by creator with argument "This is an ongoing case and it is not yet established whether she was murdered in the church or not, just that her body was found there; irrelevant - this is a notable case receiving heavy media coverage, much of which focuses on the victim herself." I still claim this person is not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. PS. Update - I also agree with renaming and refocusing the article on the crime, not the person. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this. I'm not sure we should keep it, but it is a really BIG news story in Scotland. It isn't just a typical murder, it happened in a church, there's a high-profile trial, and the involvement of a local parish priest. There is multiple independent media coverage - not just a story on a wire but TV and major newspapers have followed it. I'm going to list this on Wikiprohect Scotland - so give some of those folks a few days to look it over. Myself, abstain.--

Docg 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • delete. If she really is a significant individual in an extremely controversial trial, as Charlene says, and this is documented in the article, I may change my mind. Currently the article says nothing that would distinguish her from hundreds of other (alleged) rape and murder victims. --Aleph-4 12:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shug, yes well, quite. I could expand the article and provide impeccable sourcing. But I'm not sure I want to, and I'm not sure we'd want to keep it even if I did. But if you check the links I provided above you will see she is/was a significant individual in an [extremely?] controversial trial--
Docg 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I know what you are say Doc, I feel the same way meself. Maybe we should invoke "wiki is not a crystalball" and lets see about this next month after the dust settles.--Vintagekits 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK delete without prejudice to recreation in a month or more if anyone wants. If recreated later, we can consider it again, it certainly should NOT be speedied.--
    Docg 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep This is a famous case and will continue to be for some time Paul210 13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC) after looking at the rest of the discussion I would also be happy with a rename solution.--Vintagekits 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the case has caused some scandal, particularly as it involves a sexually active priest who took her in. --MacRusgail 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. My vote now goes to rename, on the basis of "... trial" or "... murder"[reply]

The fact is that

Docg 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: we should consider merging this into an article about the case itself, which may be notable (like Virginia Tech is notable, but most of the victims are not).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This case has all the makings of a Law and Order or CSI episode, with an attractive young woman who has allegedly been involved with several important men over 60 years of age and who got murdered brutally by someone. A titillating book might well be written about it or a movie could be made based on it. There is no barrier to re-creating the story if it proves as significant as other notorious murder cases, but it should be about the murder rather than the individual, just as we have Lindbergh kidnapping \and no article on the victim, Charles A. Lindbergh, jr. Looking at the stories, they keep restating about 90% the same facts, then adding one more bit of testimony, as the trial progresses slowly. I just do not see that as a real-time crime story of a crude crime it has shown itself to be encyclopedic yet. Edison 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral RenameThere is no question whatever that the murder trial is notable, even if the poor woman's life was not. However, the article itself fails to indicate why this might be true (indeed if 20% of the effort put into this debate had been put into the article ....). The conclusion I draw is that in its present form the article fails 'to assert the significance of the subject' and should go. On the other hand if it was moved to Angela Kluk murder and Edison and Doc G simply cut and paste some of their comments and added a reference or two I'd probably change my mind. (I'm having an indecisive day). Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Murder trial of Angelika Kluk or something similar. This is definitely a noteable topic, but the focus of the noteworthyness is the court case, not the victim. Sorry, but it is usually true of crime victims... --Mais oui! 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Mais oui!. Very notable trial. Maccoinnich 18:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, if rename is the consensus, fine. But not 'trial'. The trial is only notable because of the murder
Docg 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Support, funnily enough, I had just been thinking exactly the same thing myself. --Mais oui! 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've changed my mind, as noted above, after looking at the wealth of material at the BBC [5]. Most murder trials do not have so much lurid material that they have to go on over 5 weeks. A sheriff said he sat with her for 2 minutes, after giving her a golf lesson, then at the trial a security video shows it was 45 minutes [6]. A priest said he had a "sexual relationship" with her, then said it did not involve intercourse [7]. The priest said he did not know about the trapdoor where the body was concealed, but testimony said he did. [8] She had a "married lover" whose wife was angry. [9]. Clearly a major story in the UK (27,000 Google hits) over an extended period, with lots of material to write an interesting article from. Edison 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable victim with lots of media attention --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment. This case generated at lot of interest at the time that it arose. I am not sure whether legal proceedings have been completed, but when they are, the article should be converted to a general one of the murder case, (being moved i.e. renamed) appropriately. Peterkingiron 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename probably Angela Kluk Murder. Sweeping scandal like this under the rug is what got the Catholic Church is such deep financial trouble, at least in English speaking countries. I suspect that this has gone past a news story, and is now history, maybe evolving historyPustelnik 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the name Angelika Kluk is going to appear in many contexts as a short hand for the issues the case illustrates. It makes sense to allready have a page which people who don't recognise it can find. This is exactly the benefit of wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia Jeniswitch 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That can be sorted by a redirect.--
a pox on the boxes 19:55, 30 April 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Angelika_Kluk&oldid=1142168480"