Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk

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. David Eppstein raises an excellent point. Sean William @ 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Burk

--KEEP--This article may have encyclopedic value considering the legal system, incarceration, punishment, and crime wave in America.

Lauren Burk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• KEEP - 66.214.9.247
  • Removed trolling comment by vandal. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep You hit the nail on the head. She is indeed notable for being murdered, so why put an AfD for it? There are over 1000 news articles on Lauren Burk, and the case has attracted immense attention. The media has already decided on the importance of this case, and it's not up to Wikipedian editors to say anything. EgraS (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being that this is Wikipedia and not a news site, it's absolutely up to the editors to decide whether or not she is notable enough to be included here. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is the editors who write, but it's the rest of the world who determines the notability of certain events. This case has attracted such immense news coverage that to not include it would be a travesty.EgraS (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This one event has produced so much more attention that it far outstrips that requirement. EgraS (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  Eve Carson 24.124.109.67 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It's informative enough and very notable, I don't see a reason why it should be deleted other than the fact someone is being stubborn on what they don't think is worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article. --Jammy (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EgraS.--Oldak Quill 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BIO1E. Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, notable for only one event. If the event itself becomes sufficiently notable, create an article for it. --Zantolak (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In the absence of a guideline for crime articles, I prefer that some significance beyond just grabbing headlines be demonstrated. This appearing to be a sad, all-too-common random robbery, it's just a burst of news that will soon dissipate. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, Keep "All-too-common" indeed, the usefulness of information of this kind is to prevent similar incidents. Within academia is the field of criminology and crime prevention, and more and/or different information is known of this case than that of
    Eve Carson as of this posting. If it's found that a parking lot is inadequately lit or that college students away from home are an easy target like sailors in a strange port, then lets see where the information takes us. I would like to see a lot more info on this case than is submitted, but local authorities may be saving some of that for trial. Not all info is useful to all people.Sparree (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Here we go again. More
  MWWS. Seems we have to have an article on every pretty murder victim. What's notable? WWGB (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete For all the above reasons. Also, this
  WP:POINTy article's creator and principle editor is an alleged sockpuppet of an editor whose interests include pretty white women killed by Black men. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Malik, I never thought you were a conspiracy nut in league with Flash. I can also accuse you or anyone on the userpage of any offense and mention it every time you post anything. This topic is of significant interest in the American media and has thousands of news articles on it and is head and shoulder, root and limb above the rest of the murders. EgraS (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Resolute 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not true. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In the very first line (above), the person who proposed this deletion admits that the subject is notable. Notable for her death, yes --- but nonetheless notable. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Poor phrasing isn't the same as the nominator asserting notability. The only claim to notability is dying. That is far different than being notable for dying. Murders are very common, they alone do not make an individual notable. Resolute 06:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, come on. Let's all stop pretending that this is just like any other murder in the USA. There were how many hundreds (or thousands?) of murders in the USA in the past week/month/year? How come we all know this name? And we don't know the other hundred/thousand names? This murder is different, period. Whether or not it deserves to be is an entirely different issue. We at Wikipedia cannot dictate to ABC and CBS and NBC and Fox and (etc.) what they should be noting in their news broadcasts. Someone somewhere (God knows who) has decided that this is one of the notable murders from the hundreds and thousands that occurred. So be it. It's notable and we can cover it. Your head is in the sand if you can say with a straight face that this murder has received the same news coverage (read "notability") as any other run-of-the-mill murder. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Oh, come on yourself. The only reason many people here ever heard of Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote an article and most of us are trying to have it removed because the subject lacks sufficient notability. It's just NOT that different, period. WWGB (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow! Like the previous post says, get your head out of the sand. And quick. Your comment is laughable. Go and re-read it. The only reason that millions of Americans have heard about Lauren Burk is because EzraS wrote a Wikipedia article on it. That's your claim? That remark is so ignorant, it warrants no reply. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete because wikipedia is (supposed to be) an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Quale (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quale's comment
  talk) 08:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per nom. --70.188.129.189 (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOT#NEWS. Deor (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Remember that the notability standards really don't include people notable just for one thing, for one event; and passing interest (as evidenced in the article) in the death of an otherwise typical college student surely isn't enough to guarantee notability. This isn't Natalie Holloway. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, OK. So please explain to all of us how and why Natalie Holloway is different. No one in the world ever heard of her until she was murdered. And she was a high school kid, to boot. So, how indeed is that different than this case? I'm real curious. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment There is a concurrent debate going on with very similar facts to the ones here. 24.124.125.33 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came to Wikipedia direct from Google to look up Lauren Burk. If Wikipedia calls itself an encyclopedia, it should keep this article. If it calls itself an academic encyclopedia, this is different. If you delete this, you should delete all porn stars, all politicians (except Presidents, Prime Ministers, and major Senators), delete Jimbo Wales (just a minor internet figure - half joking!), etc. You may say that other crap does not justify this article but this article is not crap and other articles set the standard. This article is also important as one of a series of similar murders during a time frame. If you want to combine articles, that's ok but a little confusing....People say notability. Well, that's the notability, similar crimes over a similar time. Otherwise, an isolated killing isn't always noteworthy, I agree. —Preceding
  few or no other edits
  outside this topic.
  • WP:WAX. The existence of, and claims to notability of other articles has no relevance at all to this article. It has to stand on it's own merits. And I fail to see how a news story fits in with an "academic encyclopedia." Wikinews is the project you are looking for. Resolute 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Every murder victim is notable enough for WP? I don't think so. Fail to see what this article is doing here. WikiNews, okay. Wikipedia, no. Rien Post (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhhhhh. Who said every murder victim? Seems like those are your words, no? And that's painting with a pretty broad brush. And if that's what you are resting your argument on, that's evidence enough of the weakness of your argument. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Like an obit. Renee (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per
  WP:NOT#NEWS. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Has sufficient notability per guidelines. SuMadre (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is sadly, but she is only one of many crime victims. --Paukrus (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crime blog. Per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per rationale of Sparree, and to the conspiracy theorist, if the shoe fits... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I considered the suggestion from Sparree that this information might be useful for analysis of crime patterns but am not convinced. Such analysis would require a more comprehensive list of crimes. Matchups (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention that if we were to do such an analysis, it would be
    WP:OR, while if we were to cite someone else's analysis, we certainly would not title the article as "Lauren Burk". Resolute 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - per everyone else. --
  talk) 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - It's very sad that this young lady has been murdered, but if being murdered is a criteria for notability, Wikipedia would be full of such notables. This is not an obit site. yorkie19 (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, a non-argument ... grasping at straws. I don't hear anyone saying "being murdered is a criteria for notability". If that is your argument, where are you hearing that concept being advocated by "the other side" of the argument? Clearly, it's not her murder per se ... we can all agree that thousands are murdered. It's the impact / news / reception / coverage / reaction of the murder that makes it worthy of note. Why do people make such broad and sweeping claims (much like yours) that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand? Seriously? Who in the world ever said "every single murder, period, warrants an article"? Who said that? What a weak argument. It's not even an argument. Or, a position, for that matter. I will placate you, though. Yes, I agree with you. It is true that being murdered is not a criteria for notability. Got that out of the way. Happy now? Now, moving on productively, what does that have to do with this debate at hand? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge with
  Mourning Sickness. This victim, nor this murder seem to be notable. Rather, the REACTION to them is notable. Rooot (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Great girl, but not notable. - auburnpilot talk 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIOE. Being killed may be newsworthy, but does not have a historical impact. Notability is not temporary. Will she be notable in ten years? Probably not. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP because this is a subset of "college campus murders," which are a cultural phenomenon that has increased in number in recent years and is worthy of discussion/study/analysis. Mooveeguy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't even murdered on a college campus. so that argument to keep is rather obtuse. WWGB (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, keep it as an example of

Missing White Woman Syndrome. How can anyone enter that debate without examples to reference? Mooveeguy (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• DeleteThe only reason I ever heard of Lauren Burk is someone had put it on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not just American and to me the only reason I do know about this poor human being is someone put in on Wikipedia. Wikinews fine not here. What are we trying to outdo facebook et al! If so the floodgates will open I have at least one possible that could be added, death by car used as weapon, student, young man,(damn! wrong gender) Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quale. Cougar Draven (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A one time story, this is not comparable to the Natalee Holloway case that dragged on and on and generated far more public interest. -- Dougie WII (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Tragic that a young woman like her had to be murdered, but it isn't noteworthy. Peter1968 (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This is a major story in the USA. Why have an easily accessible, user editable online encyclopedia and not include this? Might as well delete Natalee Holloway, Hurricane Katrina, and the Iraq war as well if you delete Lauren Burk. —Preceding
  few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Delete - per previous: it's quite news-worthy but not encyclopedic. --Cheeser1 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BIO1E. Cxz111 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - None of the deleters probably live in the South. This is the most discussed news of the past month. Wikipedia is definitely not World Book, as one has to put in the context that there are 2 million articles, or 1 article per 120 or so people in the US or 1 in 5000 in the world. Lauren Burk's case is landmark in importance, and deserves a much longer article. This deletion discussion itself illutrates the importance of the case. Few of what I've seen comes close to this. I question if the deleters here are doing it because the murderer is black and they dont want to ever write anything or show anything that is percieved to be anti-black, but really, race should have nothing to do with this AfD. And there are some 2K articles on google about Lauren Burk. Tattarattat (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)— Tattarattat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete as per "all too common" and
  MWWS article in an "Examples" section, yes? JTGILLICK (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep or Rename well-covered media story, making it notable. Natalee Holloway herself is not notable, just her story. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article

No it would not. Neither the unfortunate woman or her murder are notable. Changing the name of the article does not make anything any more notable. WWGB (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a national media story. The argument, that the story is not notable, is false. Please visit that other page and weigh in to the argument there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your position on this matter. I'm just making the point that simply changing the name of the article would not satisfy this "complainant" (which is a change from being called a "deletist"). WWGB (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The primary complaint in both this and the Carson story is that the victim is not notable. Natalee Holloway herself is less notable than Carson and certainly no more notable than Burk. The notability is in the story. The story got national media coverage, and therefore is notable. So renaming the article is the right way to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to butt in on you two, but I feel that all three subject are equally unnotable. I do agree that the notability is in the story, and unfortunately Carson and Burk's stories are told too often to be notable. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Holloway story notable, then? People go missing every day. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel her disappearance is notable because of the controversy surrounding it. But you could make a strong argument that a biographic page about her doesn't belong. You have to remember, back in 2005 when she went missing we didn't have ONEEVENT and BLP. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've learned from watching the deletionists attack previously uploaded images by the thousand, what the rules were in the past do not matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be drawn into this debate, but I'd like to add my support to WWGB's comment. In my opinion, renaming the article doesn't make the subject more notable, and it wouldn't change my !vote. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Her life wasn't notable enough to deserve an article, same with Eve Carson, and just renaming the article to 'Death of...' still doesn't make them notable enough. Is every female American murder victim getting their own article now? I hadn't heard anything at all about these girls until I saw it on Wikipedia --KingOfExtreme (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability does not have to do with whether you personally have heard about something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability fully depends on people hearing and knowing about the person/situation. I bet no-one in my country or any other country outside of America has heard about this girl's death because it is no different to all the other hundreds of people who die everyday, apart from a typical case of MWWS. Like I said before, does every American female murder victim deserve their own biography based solely on the fact that they are now dead? --KingOfExtreme (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you concerned that wikipedia is going to run out of space? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (To begin, please excuse the seeming facetiousness of the following suggestion) Wouldn't the proper venue for all these Life-Notable-Only-Because-Of-Notable-Death items do better on something like a subset of MySpace - one called DeadSpace, perhaps? Or a subeset of FaceBook called DeathBook.

Alternatively - a Wiki article on People Notable by Reason of Death Only? JTGILLICK (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The event (her death) is notable, period. Regardless of whether or not she herself is/was notable. It would take a fool not to realize that her story has been blasted all over the news. Like it or not, it has. And, that is what makes it notable. This murder has elicited a huge (national) public reaction. Her story / her death / her murder ... coupled in such proximity with the Eve Carson murder. To argue that this has not gathered national notability is ludicrous. How do people on this page argue that point with a straight face is beyond me. I am indifferent to the name/title of the article. But, certainly the event is notable --- independent of whether or not the individual (Burk) is notable. I'd also basically mimic all that Baseball Bugs has said. His arguments are clearly on point and valid. Everyone else is caught up in pushing some agenda -- and ignoring the plain fact that this is a notable event. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

How many times are you planning to vote Joseph? You voted previously on 06:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC). Getting worried you might lose? WWGB (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We can just "copy and paste" the Eve Carson debate. It is essentially the same exact debate. That ended in "no consensus" ... as these all do ... and as this will. And rightly so, as "no consensus" simply defaults to a KEEP. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Not when you have voted more than once and a few "keeps" have been made by alleged socks or meatpuppets. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect This is basically what I said at the other AfD: I'm seeing a lot of
  John Hinckley, Jr., you could go on and on. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, but rather pointing out that having a policy that says that we shouldn't have articles for people notable for only one event is clearly flawed. As with the other, I recommend redirecting to Murder of Lauren Burk. Is this girl notable? No, buther death has received significant coverage in the media, making it a notable event. faithless (^speak) 07:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as others have repeatedly stated, citing
  WP:NOT#NEWS. BWH76 (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per others, not notable. Media attention alone shouldn't determine notability, much of their criteria for attention is based on a thing called 'getting ratings'. Sansumaria (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have just declared CNN, et al, to be unreliable sources. Can you find a wikipedia rule to back up that claim? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (elaborating on what I said earlier) The continual reference to "NOT NEWS" is a bogus argument based on old-fashioned thinking. Wikipedia is fluid and dynamic, NOT PAPER. The media decide what's notable, not individual editors who personally think something is "not notable". As a member of the general public, I come to wikipedia for information. If I can't find it here, I might assume wikipedia is behind the curve. Worse, if I knew it was here and now is gone, I might assume wikipedia is being run by bozos. Either way, I might conclude that wikipedia is unreliable, and will turn elsewhere for information in the future. That conclusion should be of more concern to editors than anything else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now Baseball Bugs has voted twice (see 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)). What's up indeed, Doc??? WWGB (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, yer right. Didn't realize I had. So solly. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fishwrapper news. Will ^(talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have just declared CNN, et al, to be unreliable sources. Can you find a wikipedia rule to back up that claim? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do you realize,
  fanatical and your arguments become less effective? You've made your point. More than a few times. Give it a rest. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I am merely trying to get people to think about what they're saying, to think outside of their respective boxes that they seem to want to keep wikipedia in. I would like wikipedia to be all it can be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia does have articles on current events. Perhaps that policy is wrong, but if so we should change it, not ignore it just because we sympathise with the victim in this particular case. Andrewa (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (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.