Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Teuber

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. v/r - TP 14:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Teuber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable crime victim; one in a series of victims that received publicity in the 1930s but does not meet the criteria of

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Deltete Although this is a sad story, every murder victim's story is sad. Fails
  WP:VICTIM. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is unfortunate that Wikipedia is filled with persons such as MelanieN who search for means to delete work that worthy contributors have made, rather than making substantive contributions themselves. Her self-description as a veteran administrator is, of course spurious, as are any other attributes she has chosen to decorate herself with. It is really sad that persons with little talent in writing choose "deletion" as a means of demonstrating their authority on Wikipedia. The truly significant administrator works to aggregate well-written & pertinent articles rather than remove them. The designation of a topic as "considered for deletion" is also poor terminology. Even before a writer is informed that his/her work is under review, there is no chance that it will remain.Robert (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I realize you are upset that your article was nominated for deletion, and so you are angry at me. But this is not about me, it's about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of articles. (In fact, if you looked at my talk page, you should have seen that my philosophical preference is to "rescue" articles rather than delete them - when they meet Wikipedia's criteria, as I believe Louise Teuber does not. And just to be clear, I am not an administrator.)
You are mistaken that there is "no chance" an article will remain once it is nominated for deletion. If you look at some of the discussions at

crime, victims, and perpetrators is quite high: "For victims: The victim, consistent with WP:BLP1E, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.[8]" Louise Teuber was a murder victim in a year during which there were several murders of women in San Diego, none of them ever solved - but that does not give her historic significance as far as I can tell. Incidentally Louise Teuber has nothing to do with Balboa Park; it was another woman, Hazel Bradshaw, whose body was dumped in Balboa Park - and I can't find that the crime(s) had any lasting effect on the park, or on San Diego.
If you wish this article to be kept, you need to marshall arguments that are directly related to Wikipedia's criteria. How did she affect the history of San Diego? Where is the persistent coverage that devotes significant attention to her? You have listed several Los Angeles Times articles on the page, but it might help if you used them to verify specific things in the article (in other words, in-line citations) rather than simply listing them.
Various people will be weighing in on this discussion, people who are concerned with maintaining Wikipedia's standards as well as keeping worthy articles; their arguments will be based on Wikipedia's policies and practices, and so should yours be. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - passes wp:crime. also per Robertg9 reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:VICTIM says that a victim "should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if ... the victim ... had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." I tried a Google search on "Louise Teuber" but was unable to find anything but a bunch of lists, trivia sites, and copies of the Wikipedia article. I'm just not convinced that the available source material establishes the level of notability required for this sort of article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I very often support article like this, because the rule is normally applied much less strictly to historical than recent figures. However, this is not a significant historical figure in any sense at all, and I see no evidence that there is any coverage later than the time of the murder. If there is any to be found, I would think differently. I endorse Melanie's explanation, and I urge Robert to look for subjects that have wider sourcing. I urge him very much to remain a contributor--there's nothing personal in having an article one has written deleted, it's happened to most of us, myself included. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there is evidence that her death changed forensic analysis, or started an organization to stop such crimes, or caused an annual remembrance day in the area that lasted longer than usual (or some other significant event), I dont see her being notable. I could see her death noted in an article on such crimes. She deserves, of course, to be remembered, but we can't start that here. Im not happy writing this, but i dont see any way around our policy on victims, given the information we have on her.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no indication that the topic meets
  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of the crime or its investigation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename and change emphasis -- I spent some time looking at the references. This case was sufficiently notable that a young man, a criminal wannabe, confessed to her murder. There were additional references to her murder in following years as additional murders and additional false confessions. She was believed, at the time, to be a victim of a serial killer, a sadist, who raped girls and women before killing them. I believe that while coverage of Teuber is on the border of notability, coverage of the series of murders is notable. Geo Swan (talk) 12:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Various books do publish a bit about these unsolved murders, and they got ample news coverage at the time. Perhaps instead of just one victim, have information about all seven murders. What to call it though? SAN Diego, California, unsolved murders 1931-36 or The unsolved murders of... can't really think of a decent name of this. Perhaps list all unsolved murders or groups of murders, and then break them into separate articles based on how they have been categorized together by the news coverage and crime historians. Page 330 and 331 have a bit about this in The Encyclopedia of Unsolved Crimes By Michael Newton. Other books cover it. Enough coverage found about to make some decent articles I think. Dream Focus 22:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Judging from what I read at

• Keep. Notability is inherent, deleting is similar to deleting history.Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (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.