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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where and how? What is the lasting impact? RGloucester — ☎ 04:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is a local crime story. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Keep There has, in fact, been continued coverage, as is evident from the story yesterday in the Seattle Times [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just a comment, but how is the Seattle Times a local newspaper? It's the largest newspaper in its state with 230 thousand readers. JT_dale^Talk~ 19:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Times, and the New York Times for that matter, also cover local news. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DAMN!! I missed the new notability requirement that all reliable sources must be available on sale in Edinburgh (a city, incidentally, whose population is only 2/3rds of Seattle's, and whose main paper, the Edinburgh Evening News has a circulation 1/7th that of the Seattle Times). BMK (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said such. There is a reason I don't write articles about parochial crimes in Edinburgh. Likewise, no one should be doing such for any other place either, unless it can be demonstrated that the event meets the criteria of having a lasting impact, appearing in a diverse variety of sources, and having continued coverage in that diverse variety. This event clearly does not meet those criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Everyking. Notability is quite sufficiently established. BMK (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

As with many other aspects of Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Oh, here we go. You have not read WP:EVENT. There are criteria. It must appear in diverse sources, it must have a lasting impact, it must have continued coverage long after the event has ceased, and it must heavily affect a region, group of people, &c. You've not demonstrated how it meets these criteria. It simply doesn't. There is no continuing coverage in diverse sources, and there is no evidence that it has had a lasting impact anywhere, despite the fact that years have passed. I find it hard to take someone seriously that both ignores Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and attacks another editor for no apparent reason other than to be vindictive. You've not examined anything. You are here to make a point. You've made it. I hope you are content with yourself, for it is you who is damaging the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 05:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll be content when the article is kept, as it should be. BMK (talk) 05:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you accuse me of being "partisan". What a lovely world, we all inhabit. RGloucester — ☎ 05:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're saying that I have a partisan reason for wanted this article to be kept, as opposed to having examined the evidence and made a judgment based on it? Do you actually read anything you write, or do you use one of those automated gibberish generators where you feed in a bunch of "my dear sirs" and "I shall be compelled to take action" and "I am as my creator made me" and then push the button? BMK (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]