Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Mahaffy (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Mahaffy

This article is pretty close to not being about the nominal subject at all. At best it would be an entry in a directory of victims of serial criminals (if Wikipedia was a directory, which it isn't), but actually there is only one subject and the two perpetrators and any victims should all be rolled into one article on the notable case. The single reference is not encouraging. A purported biography teased from an article in one magazine. Name recognition (stated as a reason for keep last time round) can and should be handled with a redirect to the article on the case. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability does not expire. In Canada it was a very big news and was partly resurrected two years ago when one of her killer's was freed. We can certainly find other article's to delete. This is not one of them IMO. Fighting for Justice 22:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in general, crime victims aren't notable if only known as being victims. Pats Sox Princess 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well known in Canada. Type 40 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a huge story in Buffalo too, and the names are still very much associated with the crimes. This search shows 553 hits for her name at Google News Archive search, over 100 since the beginning of 2006. ATren 23:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Type 40 and her murder is one of the most publicized and followed cases here in Canada.--JForget 00:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, this is exactly the kind of article that doesnt improve the encyclopedia and should be deleted and salted, SqueakBox 01:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I go by the sources, and 500 in Google News over 2 years is sufficient notability by any standard.DGG (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the nomination again. I came here because I don't think this should be a separate article. Merging this and other articles to a single article on the crimes, which are notable, is fine, but this article is essentially not about the purported subject at all, it's about the crimes. "Biographies" founded on a single event are simply wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction - it's 500 total, and more than 100 in the last two years. ATren 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would accept a merger if there were a reasonably comprehensive article about the case, but in its absence keep as you can hardly be a murder victim and ~~less~~ any more notable than she is. Guy, sometimes I wonder about your campaign to rid Wikipedia of things you consider beneath it. --Dhartung | Talk 02:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dhartung. She was one of the victims of one of the most famous murders in Canadian history. That said, it would probably be preferable to redirect this article to one about the case, and its legacy, if one had been written. Resolute 04:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if we want Wikipedia to be international it's fitting that we have article's about murder victims who's cases were notable in their home country. This case is our(I'm in Canada) equivalent of what the James Bulger case was to Britian. Fighting for Justice 04:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in Canada as well, so am well aware of the legacy of Bernardo and Holmolka. That said, I do not believe that being a murder victim makes one independently notable, even one as famous as Mahaffy (or French). Especially when the article has very little to do with the individual herself, but rather focuses more on the case. I voted keep for the very reason you suggest, but ideally, much of the content of this article belongs in an article about the crime itself, its impact, and its legacy. Resolute 04:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where I agree with Guy, perhaps, is that a "biography" is not the best structure for an article about a murder victim. I have spoken before that overlapping/conflicting policies make it difficult to use a different structure. A biography is simple to write: a person is a self-contained topic. Things about a notable person are reasonably included and linked. A non-biography presents problems of defining what fits and what does not fit, and editors who wish to rid Wikipedia of "tabloid" material might do better creating a set of guidelines for creating such articles or transforming biographies into them. As it is, the crude club of AFD is ill-suited for reaching that end. In any case, Guy is apparently using AFD to argue for a merge, which is best handled on the Talk pages of the article. There is simply no policy precedent for distinguishing between "notability" and what he here calls "name recognition". --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the most famous victim of Canada's most famous serial killer is not notable? I don't think so. --Haemo 04:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --MichaelLinnear 07:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm just realizing now that this article already went through an AFD this very year. Is this allowed? If it is kept again, will there be another AFD in 3 months? I'm not trying to be uncivil or anything, but could there be a couple of users who are making a coordinated effort in deleting this article permanently? I haven't come across another article that's been nominated for deletion twice in the same year. I hope I'm not ruffling any feathers with my comment. I'm only making an observation. Fighting for Justice 10:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD was only open a couple hours before being speedy kept. It is, perhaps, better to let this debate run its course. Resolute 13:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the added comment that normally I am agreeance with JzG with regards to biographical subjects, but this particular subject is notable beyond the scope of WP:BLP and has a wealth of references available from highly reliable sources. Burntsauce 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a source, but it only covers her insomuch as listing her as someone the guy killed, and what the circumstances of her slaying were. If that is that is needed to be "significant coverage from reliable sources independant of the subject", then the pretty much anyone who has ever been murdered and had their story on television or in the paper is notable. i ^{(said) (did)} 01:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kristen French and details from Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo into a new article about the crimes. Although this recommendation is not formally allowed by the AfD process, it is probably the best way to deal with the article. This article (and Kristen French, which is not being considered for deletion) is not about the victim, it's primarily concerned with the crime. This way all the information about the crimes could be in one place and not be duplicated in four articles. In addition, the very recognizable names of the victims would redirect to a more appropriate article. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in the interests of improving the group of articles, I think this might be a reasonable choice. I think the way of doing it that would show the intent most clearly is to keep this article, and then propose the necessary merges and page moves. I'm not sure what title you have in mind, though. DGG (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to Flyguy's proposal (with redirects, of course), but absent that this does need to be kept. Even a person who did nothing except die can be said to be independently notable, if they're still a household name fifteen years after their death as Mahaffy is. WP:BIO does include "Wide name recognition" as a criterion. This is akin to Laci Peterson, not to a victim of the VA Tech shooting. Merge if necessary; keep otherwise. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristen French. Bearcat 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per Flyguy469 and Bearcat, I think the information in the articles about Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy need to be merged into a new article, incorporating information from Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. I propose Murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy. With that done, we'd have to set up a number of redirects to that article from:

Murders of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, Murder of Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French, Murder of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy

Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French murders, et al

Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French

Leslie Mahaffy and Kristen French

various mis-spellings of the names: Kristin, Kirsten, Mahaffey etc...

There are probably other issues to consider, but they escape me right now. Mind matrix 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat, but I'm opposed to a merger in such cases because it is so profoundly disrespectful to the victim as an individual. Given the thousands of articles mentioning her name in lexis-nexis, the article can surely be improved. Bucketsofg 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and if we're relying on a single source to write this article, I don't see how it possibly belongs in any encyclopedia including our own. RFerreira 20:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Guy's absolutely dead-on with this one. Of course, many Canadians will know about Mahaffy & French, but the integrity of an encyclopedic project is challenged by this kind of article, which would be better covered in an article on the Homolka/Bernardo crimes. It is nice, and I hope it becomes a more frequent pattern, to see an argument framed that effectively demolishes the mindless, intellectually facile "I found xx references on google" argument for establishing notability. WP is slowly (slowly, oh so slowly) growing up. Eusebeus 22:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"mindless intellectually facile" - yes, thank goodness this place is growing up! Maybe soon we'll get to the point where an argument can be made without insulting the other side, eh? ATren 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RFerreira. GreenJoe 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - While a Wikipedia biography on Leslie Mahaffy would/could be appropriate, this article is not. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 09:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known in Canada, and easily verifiable. - SimonP 12:02, 30 July 2007 (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.