Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Sandra Cantu

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. Significant and persistant coverage demonstrated and not substantively rebutted; insistence that it must also demonstrate "significant impact" is not supported by guideline language or consensus in this discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sandra Cantu

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects or national/global scope. Transcendence (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an event that was deemed notable when it occured and for several years after does not suddenly lose notability. WP even have guidelines about that. Also per GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in the case of murders, WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG. all murders generate coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your personal interpretation that I doubt is set in policy or guidelines. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, the case is the main topic of the book Searching for Sandra: The Story Behind the Disappearance of Sandra Cantu by Stacy Dittrich (2013) and it is also covered in books such as Women Criminals: An Encyclopedia of People and Issues (2011, pages 473-476) and The String of Pearls (2012). Cavarrone 06:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Snow keep" is inappropriate in this case, see WP:SNOW.--MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate after your vote, not before. Cavarrone 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate after only three days and two "keep" votes. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that inappropriate then? because you want it deleted and other users disagree with you. come on.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Melanie, snow keep is appropriate when there is unanimous keep !votes of several voters. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This crime did not receive much long-term coverage. Press coverage was local and was related to developments in the case and trial.[1] The referenced book, "Searching for Sandra," was not published by a mainstream publisher and appears to be available only electronically. A tragic story but not one with lasting significance. --MelanieN (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced book, "Searching for Sandra", is not available only electronically (found in one minute search). The attempt to dismiss a source just because "not published by a mainstream publisher" is also baseless, Blue Jay Media is the publisher of the author Stacy Dittrich and "not being mainstream" did not affected her notability, as far as I can see. On the other hand, if you are searching for "mainstream", ABC-CLIO, publisher of Women Criminals: An Encyclopedia of People and Issues is a mainstream publisher. Cavarrone 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is a hardcover edition - published by Crime Street Press, which does not appear to have ever published anything else[2], so presumably self published. And I could not find a single review of the book anywhere except Amazon, so it does not seem to have created much of a splash. In any case, that bears on the notability (or not) of the book Searching for Sandra, not the notability of this crime. Being the subject of a little-noticed book and being mentioned in a large encyclopedia do not count as "ongoing significant coverage" in my book; others may differ. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A whole book by a notable author is significant coverage, and four pages (not "a mention") in an encyclopedia are significant coverage too, they don't surely fall under the definition "trivial mention". I never heard before this discussion that the sources require to be "notable" themselves, I don't care of creating an article about the Dittrich's book nor I have never argued about its notability. My point is pretty simple, a crime that inspire and become the main topic of a whole book by a notable author released four years after the event is not a routine news. And a crime that has been already included in a printed "large" encyclopedia is probably notable enough to be included in our "larger" encyclopedia (Wikipedia). Cavarrone 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Cavarrone here. This crime is notable and is covered by guidelines of notability here on Wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a newsworthy event but it does not meet the inclusion policy; the article does not demonstrate or make any claim that it was (or will be) a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance It received news coverage because it was a news story, but the event has no significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. The coverage in this is secondary, because it needs to demonstrate that lasting significance or significant impact to be in policy. LGA _talk^edits 20:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once deemed notable does not suddenly lose notability Wikipedia even have guidelines covering that. Cavarrone makes strong arguments about this article subjects notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:N#TEMP LGA.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of his large use of wikilinks and of dogmatic assertions, LGA still fails to explain why "this is a newsworthy event but it does not meet the inclusion policy". Being a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is not a mandatory requirement for judging an event, otherwise we would have just a dozen of events in WP. "It received news coverage because it was a news story" is simply false, as I provided above coverage that is blatantly indepht and non-primary. "The event has no WP:GEOSCOPE" is also an easily rebuttable assertion, are you seriously claiming that this event was local and "reported only by the media within the immediate region"? With no mention all the US national-wide sources which reported the event, it received international coverage such as Honduras, Peru, Portugal, Mexico, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Russia. Cavarrone 23:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not meet the NOTNEWS policy, as this crime is not of any enduring significance for example ask yourself why is this crime important ?, why is it worthy of encyclopaedic note ? what other events were influenced by this one ? were is the encyclopaedic analysis of the event ? the article as it stands is a detailed log of facts. LGA _talk^edits 05:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, another variation of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. So, this crime event has already been included in a printed encyclopedia and it is the subject of a whole book by a notable author published no later than a few months ago and "it is not of any enduring significance"? NOTNEWS refers to breaking/routine news inside the 24-hour news cycle or shortly thereafter, surely not to events which, years later, become part of books and encyclopedias. If you disagree you are free to do it but, with respect, it would mean you have not understand what NOTNEWS means. Cavarrone 06:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No not a variation of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC; it was a list of questions; (which you chose not to address) that demonstrate why I contend it fails WP:NOT; I look at the article and it does not demonstrate what it's enduring significance is. So I ask again very simply "What is this events enduring significance ?" LGA _talk^edits 07:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enduring significance and more generally notability are not a matter of opinion but they are given from the sources, by their timeline (further coverage opposite to relatively short news cycle), their quality (significant coverage opposite to trivial mentions) and their geographical origin (national and international coverage opposite to local press). AfD is not cleanup, there is no deadline for our articles and Wikipedia is a work in progress, the current shape of an article is not a reason to delete it but to develope and improve it. Cavarrone 07:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has previously been proposed for deletion and the the result was Keep [3] --Racklever (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. An event included in several books published years apart clearly meets WP:PERSISTENCE and it is an event with a lasting impact. No clear advantage to readers and the encyclopedia in removing this. --cyclopia ^speak! 20:19, 24 August 2013 (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.