Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Facebook killing

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. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Facebook killing

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

Non-notable crime. Media coverage is limited to a few repeated sentences. Renata (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is notable. It is reported on at least 5 continents. In contrast, this crime is not Wikipedia notable http://www.kansas.com/2011/01/19/1681025/armed-man-robs-south-wichita-store.html Also the Baltic Times reports that the crime has shocked the nation. THIS IS NEW AND JUST DISCOVERED AND ADDED TO THE ARTICLE. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad as it is, a 14-year old killing a 13-year old on a date is by itself not notable. Does the fact that the date was arranged through Facebook make this notable? Today it would actually be more remarkable if such a date was arranged through a go-between carrying notes scribbled on paper. The coverage in external sources is not in-depth but essentially consist of repetitions of the original, terse, Associated Press story. --Lambiam 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partly right, partly wrong. The "date is by itself not notable". It is that it is reported in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Australia, etc. that it is notable. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All that's been linked to so far has been reprints of the same AP story and a Daily Mail story. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were a notable murder, I see no evidence that it is known as the "2011 Facebook killing." That emphasis on the method of contact seems to be a POV slant; I removed the rather atrocious sentence from the article, "This is not the first time that Facebook has been in trouble for a murder." So it seems to be a WP:COATRACK. postdlf (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, keep the article and discuss a change in article name. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of deep notability or even that anyone uses the term "2011 Facebook killing". Several of the references are literally just the same AP story reprinted in different venues. I agree with Postdlf that this may be a WP:COATRACK of some variety. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed all but the two unique references. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not destroy the article. You voted for deletion then you start taking stuff out. Contrary to your claim, you did take out unique references. The Nigerian newspaper had more than the others (the beginning of the story was the same but there's several paragraphs added). Also it shows how worldwide the coverage is, USA, Canada, Nigeria, India, UK, Australia, Lithuania, etc. Donotkill (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each reprint of the AP story is not a unique story. Multiple links to this one story are redundant. The Nigerian story (I assume you're refering to onlinenigeria.com) was a reprint of the Daily Mail article, the original I did not remove (onlinenigeria.com "By Daily Mail Reporter") OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a news story that is unlikely to be remembered as a historic WP:EVENT. As others have said, it was the killing of one person who was lured by another over the Internet. Not the first time that that's happened, but in this case the medium happened to be Facebook. Mandsford 02:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local news story without global notability. The means used to arrange the death is very secondary to the actual event and is only used to rabble-rouse parents and the media critics (I can imagine if we were in another age we'd be talking about deleting 1924 Murder Arranged by Ham Radio or 1673 Slaying via Smoke Signal). Otherwise it should be confined local Lithuanian Wikipedia, where it probably would have more notability (though they might delete on the same grounds there). Nate • (chatter) 05:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep let's follow the rules, not "I don't like it". It is covered in 5 continents, in many countries because it is notable. Donotkill (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this user has made no edits outside of this topic to date. (User also removed the spa tag) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOsborn is lying with the above statement, trying to make me look bad.Donotkill (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of Donotkill's edits are in this topic, but there are about five as of this moment that are outside the topic. What is more relevant to the issue here is that Donotkill is the creator of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't heard anything about this, and I consider myself a reasonably-well-informed American. I know that's a subjective rubric, but even so: by that standard I cannot agree that it has received significant coverage on multiple continents. It's sad, but I don't believe that it's notable. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Donotkill attempted to move the article via a copy paste move to 2011 Facebook related killing in Lithuania, which I have tagged db-histmerge. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 23:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was renaming the page according to the wishes of another user. Donotkill (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted 2011 Facebook related killing in Lithuania under criterion A10. There were no edits in that article that were not also in the history of 2011 Facebook killing; everything I saw there was a copy and paste. —C.Fred (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a journalism teacher told me, "Dog bites man, not news; man bites dog, news." This is not the first time the Internet has been used as a lure to get a crime victim; other than the age of the offender, there is nothing intrinsically notable in the crime. Looking at WP:EVENT, the three ways I see that could generate notability for this event are lasting effects, depth of coverage, and duration of coverage. However, none of these are present in this case. Accordingly, this is outside the scope of what should be at Wikipedia and should be deleted. (It's probably within the scope of Wikinews, but that's another matter entirely.) —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have heard about this. Sources indicates notability (in my personal opinion). But it is a close call decision... most here seems to have decided for deletion but I think I will stay with my weak keep decision. There is enough for info provided for me to feel secure in my decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT#NEWS. Even coverage on all continents does not grant notability. Coverage for an event must be sustained, and not brief. Several "man bites dog" news stories, thanks mostly to the internets, get brief coverage everywhere, but they are not notable either. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:23, 25 January 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.