Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Rutterschmidt
- 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 keep. I do know that I voted in this, but the articles have been merged into an entirely new article, which will distort things significantly. The new article on Black Widow murders should be renominated under a different rationale if it is to be deleted. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Widow murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BLP1E; a person notable for only one event. The event itself isn't important enough to justify coverage - while sad, it fails WP:NOT#NEWS by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for now, although I would be open to merging to an appropriately named article focusing on the murders. Notable enough for there to be a few GBook hits for Golay and Rutterschmidt: [1]. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Golay. Location (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Helen Golay and rename to an appropriate title. They do not need separate bios for one event. Law type! snype? 06:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You then have the problem of whether the base court case passes WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True but I'd like to see that happen when the article is presented as one. Maybe I'm just asking for punishment. Law type! snype? 06:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources", this case has TruTV and Dateline. As an aside, I really do wish there was more consensus on what constitutes "significant coverage" as it applies to criminals and criminal acts. Perhaps there should be more discussion about this in WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E. For some editors, the standard of notability requires that books be written about the crimes or the criminals. For others, tons of coverage on CNN or FOX suffices (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le). Location (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tons of coverage is fine for me, as long as it's spread out and indicative. The coverage of these crimes seems to be limited to the immediate aftermath. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources", this case has TruTV and Dateline. As an aside, I really do wish there was more consensus on what constitutes "significant coverage" as it applies to criminals and criminal acts. Perhaps there should be more discussion about this in WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E. For some editors, the standard of notability requires that books be written about the crimes or the criminals. For others, tons of coverage on CNN or FOX suffices (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le). Location (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True but I'd like to see that happen when the article is presented as one. Maybe I'm just asking for punishment. Law type! snype? 06:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You then have the problem of whether the base court case passes WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Rename - per User:Law - Alison ❤ 07:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the event may possibly be barely notable, this article clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator's reasoning; the person is only notable for her actions in this one minor event. I would advise against merging simply because this article is too short to actually have much to merge anyway. NW (Talk) 10:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For some editors, the standard of notability requires that books be written about the crimes or the criminals. For others, tons of coverage on CNN or FOX suffices — This case has both. Witness the book by King and the extensive coverage in the Los Angeles Times. The true measure is not the types of the sources at all nor their circulations, which is perhaps where people are going wrong. It is whether the sources cover the subject in depth. The book and the LA Times coverage do. The PNC appears to be satisfied for this case. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2009 (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.