| Revision as of 04:51, 22 December 2014 editRGloucester (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers38,757 edits →2007 Carnation murders: failure← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:10, 22 December 2014 edit undoBeyond My Ken (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers263,266 edits →2007 Carnation murdersNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Keep''' per Everyking. Notability is quite sufficiently established. ] (]) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per Everyking. Notability is quite sufficiently established. ] (]) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Where, exactly? Can you demonstrate where it is "sufficiently established"? I have not seem any such evidence provided. I have listed the criteria, and yet it doesn't seem that anyone has tried to claim that this article actually meets them. Or perhaps you are doing a certain something that can be considered vindictive, and not becoming of someone of your station? If that's the case, I fear I shall have to take action against you. ] — ] 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | ::Where, exactly? Can you demonstrate where it is "sufficiently established"? I have not seem any such evidence provided. I have listed the criteria, and yet it doesn't seem that anyone has tried to claim that this article actually meets them. Or perhaps you are doing a certain something that can be considered vindictive, and not becoming of someone of your station? If that's the case, I fear I shall have to take action against you. ] — ] 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::As with many other aspects of Misplaced Pages, you clearly do not understand what "notability" means, or when its requirements are met. It's quite obvious that this article easily meets them, and has quite enough referencing from very reliable sources (the ''Seattle Times'' and the ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'', for instance.).<p>As for "vindictive", if you mean that I have noted your considerable lack of judgment on a number of occasions, as well as your hypocritical behavior and your failure to understand how Misplaced Pages works and what its basic premise is, and for these reasons decided to take a look to see what other harm you might be doing to the project -- yes, that is true, and it lead me here, and I examined the article and the sources and the evidence and the opinions of others in their comments, and I decided that, once again, you were wrong, hence my opinion that the article should be kept. If you want to "take action" against me for expressing an opinion you don't agree with, that's your privilege, but I'd be surprised if it got any traction, especially considering the way you blithely mutilate and misinterpret Wikiways in order to get the results you want. ] (]) 05:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:10, 22 December 2014
2007 Carnation murders
- 2007 Carnation murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor murder that does not meet WP:EVENT notability criteria, which has had no WP:LASTING effect on anything. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, and does not collect endless information on minor crimes that are not encyclopaedic. Has had no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, does not appear in a WP:DIVERSE variety of sources, does not have any WP:DEPTH of coverage, and mentions, even from years ago, are primarily in local press, hence not meeting WP:GEOSCOPE. RGloucester — ☎ 01:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Where and how? What is the lasting impact? RGloucester — ☎ 04:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is a local crime story. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Everyking. source do indicate notability. Once that is established notability does not need to be eternal until present time.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Where do "sources indicate notability"? Where are these sources? Did you read our criteria, such as WP:LASTING, WP:DEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? I imagine not. This was never a notable incident. RGloucester — ☎ 23:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There has, in fact, been continued coverage, as is evident from the story yesterday in the Seattle Times about the jury being selected. This and the other sources I have added to the article since this AFD began also establish the existence of in-depth coverage of this event. Everymorning talk 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, they don't. One incidence of routine coverage of jury selection in one local newspaper does not indicate WP:DEPTH or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The event must be covered in WP:DIVERSE sources outside a narrow WP:GEOSCOPE. It must also have a WP:LASTING impact. It has none of these things. Simply open Google News, and it is easy to see this. All one sees is a very few articles in local outlets about routine legal business, nothing more. In fact, one sees many more false hits. There is no "in-depth" coverage. I think you did not read WP:DEPTH, or any of the other criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just a comment, but how is the Seattle Times a local newspaper? It's the largest newspaper in its state with 230 thousand readers. JTdale~ 19:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Seattle Times, and the New York Times for that matter, also cover local news. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Seattle Times is a newspaper for a small state in one country, which itself is but a small part of the world. It is a local newspaper. You shan't find The Seattle Times on sale in London or Berlin, shall you? I'm surprised you cannot tell the difference between a national and a local newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your comment is the result of a grossly provincial attitude, and you obviously know nothing about Seattle or its media (and probably as little about the US as well). The Seattle Times is a major American newspaper -- not the first rank, not the NY Times or the Washington Post or the LA Times, but definitely in the level just below. You will find the Seattle Times in London in exactly the same kind of store that you will find the Times of London at in New York City, in an out-of-town newsstand. BMK (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, sir. If it doesn't appear in a diverse variety of sources persistently, it does not meet the criteria. Appearing once or so as a matter of routine reporting in a regional newspaper is neither diverse coverage, nor persistent coverage. I shall have you know that I live in America, so I hardly believe the idea that I "know little" it. Odd that I've never seen the Seattle Times on sale in Edinburgh, when I'm home. Odd. Very odd. Regardless, if it only appears in the Seattle Times on a rare routine basis, that does not demonstrate lasting impact, persistent coverage, or diverse coverage. You've failed. RGloucester — ☎ 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your comment is the result of a grossly provincial attitude, and you obviously know nothing about Seattle or its media (and probably as little about the US as well). The Seattle Times is a major American newspaper -- not the first rank, not the NY Times or the Washington Post or the LA Times, but definitely in the level just below. You will find the Seattle Times in London in exactly the same kind of store that you will find the Times of London at in New York City, in an out-of-town newsstand. BMK (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Seattle Times is a newspaper for a small state in one country, which itself is but a small part of the world. It is a local newspaper. You shan't find The Seattle Times on sale in London or Berlin, shall you? I'm surprised you cannot tell the difference between a national and a local newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 01:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- The Seattle Times, and the New York Times for that matter, also cover local news. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just a comment, but how is the Seattle Times a local newspaper? It's the largest newspaper in its state with 230 thousand readers. JTdale~ 19:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, they don't. One incidence of routine coverage of jury selection in one local newspaper does not indicate WP:DEPTH or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The event must be covered in WP:DIVERSE sources outside a narrow WP:GEOSCOPE. It must also have a WP:LASTING impact. It has none of these things. Simply open Google News, and it is easy to see this. All one sees is a very few articles in local outlets about routine legal business, nothing more. In fact, one sees many more false hits. There is no "in-depth" coverage. I think you did not read WP:DEPTH, or any of the other criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 00:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per Everyking. Notability is quite sufficiently established. BMK (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Where, exactly? Can you demonstrate where it is "sufficiently established"? I have not seem any such evidence provided. I have listed the criteria, and yet it doesn't seem that anyone has tried to claim that this article actually meets them. Or perhaps you are doing a certain something that can be considered vindictive, and not becoming of someone of your station? If that's the case, I fear I shall have to take action against you. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- As with many other aspects of Misplaced Pages, you clearly do not understand what "notability" means, or when its requirements are met. It's quite obvious that this article easily meets them, and has quite enough referencing from very reliable sources (the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for instance.).
As for "vindictive", if you mean that I have noted your considerable lack of judgment on a number of occasions, as well as your hypocritical behavior and your failure to understand how Misplaced Pages works and what its basic premise is, and for these reasons decided to take a look to see what other harm you might be doing to the project -- yes, that is true, and it lead me here, and I examined the article and the sources and the evidence and the opinions of others in their comments, and I decided that, once again, you were wrong, hence my opinion that the article should be kept. If you want to "take action" against me for expressing an opinion you don't agree with, that's your privilege, but I'd be surprised if it got any traction, especially considering the way you blithely mutilate and misinterpret Wikiways in order to get the results you want. BMK (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- As with many other aspects of Misplaced Pages, you clearly do not understand what "notability" means, or when its requirements are met. It's quite obvious that this article easily meets them, and has quite enough referencing from very reliable sources (the Seattle Times and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, for instance.).
- Where, exactly? Can you demonstrate where it is "sufficiently established"? I have not seem any such evidence provided. I have listed the criteria, and yet it doesn't seem that anyone has tried to claim that this article actually meets them. Or perhaps you are doing a certain something that can be considered vindictive, and not becoming of someone of your station? If that's the case, I fear I shall have to take action against you. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)