Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Agnes Sina-Inakoju

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

Sadly, an unremarkable crime. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's been covered in mainstream media, including the BBC and the Guardian, so seems to fairly clearly meet WP:GNG.[1][2][3][4] I'm not sure quite what the nominator means by "an unremarkable crime". It is notability that guides us, not remarkableness. — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT which also weighs how persistent the coverage is over time and how routine the coverage is. A typical crime get two news cycles, the crime itself and the trial/punishment phase. Coverage of this event does not appear to be an exception. While tragic, this crime appears to be ordinary. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources consist of routine coverage of a murder and follow-up fate of perpetrators. Fails based on WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper; crimes, even tragic ones, are not automatically exonerated from this fact. The same story is being routinely covered but there is a clear lack of lasting significance.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTNEWS: coverage of a murder in London by British newspapers is expected and routine. Mangoe (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Murder is not routine news. Gun violence is in particular not routine in the UK. In this case we have wide coverage by RS around the event, around the conviction, and during subsequent events in the area in 2014-5. We also have a few book mentions.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wide coverage of RS around the event and conviction. Books mentions. WP:GNG per mainstream media coverage as well. BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a tragic, but ultimately routine event. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting significance or societal impact; see WP:LASTING. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a murder that has garnered WP:SIGCOV. Note that I added a search bar using a more likely term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Tragic, yes. Notable, no. Clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS--Rusf10 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad news. Szzuk (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2018 (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.