Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Carole Waugh
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Death of Carole Waugh[edit]
- Death of Carole Waugh (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)
A murder that has received some passing coverage in UK media, as murders often do but especially because of some tabloid speculation about the victim's private life. No indication - or likelihood -that this will have any enduring or substantial notability. As WP:EVENT says - "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" N-HH talk/edits 17:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - pure speculations of future non-notability by nominator. Passes WP:GNG. And passes WP:PERSISTENCE per persistent coverage by multiple media as shown by the very good sourcing in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it currently has a grand total of four sources, reaching as far as seven days apart. I'm sure there are more and will be more as any prosecutions over the death take place, but I think you'll need to explain in a bit more detail how that counts as "persistent coverage" or how it amounts to anything other than "a burst or spike of news reports .. published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion". N-HH talk/edits 17:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually lots more stretching back some weeks. In starting the article I chose the sources from which I could get an overview of the case, my plan being to add more later as it's still a work-in-progress. In hindsight, I should perhaps have added a {{underconstruction}} to it until I could do more work on it, but not to worry. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I dont know if you have actually read the article. But a simple checking of the article proves that coverage has been persistent from May to August and just the other day there were news on Carole Waugh on Sky News website and news channel. Persistent coverage has been asserted. Paul has done a great work with the article so far overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I created this article because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the death, which appears to involve several people and a complex set of circumstances. The depth of coverage stretches beyond that usually devoted to a murder case - indeed, many get no more than a few column inches, and it's getting equal coverage from both the tabloid and quality press. There is also at least one International reference. Whether it has a lasting effect on society is something that it's far too early to speculate about, but I can see from reading what's available so far there will be much more coverage of this story, and I've personally no doubt that eventually I could get this up to GA or even FA status. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there will be more coverage, which I acknowledged already. But the point is, will that simply be fairly bog-standard - forgive the phrase - rolling mentions of an ongoing disappearance and later murder investigation and then regular court reporting of the subsequent trial, possibly with a bit more detail becaise of any sensationalist aspects? Does every death or murder, or even personal injury or assault, that gets more than a day's worth of reporting, for the event itself and then any subsequent trial, get a WP entry, simply because it "has sources"? You can plausibly make a case for a death that has led the headlines for several days (although personally I think that still fails not news, without any lasting impact or consequence for society as a whole), but this one really, really has not even done that. And no we don't know that it will not have a lasting effect - but we don't know that it will. The "speculation" point applies just as much to any "Keep" arguments as to any "Delete" ones; in fact it applies more strongly. N-HH talk/edits 08:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of coverage (which continues today with news of another arrest in connection with the case: see here) means WP:NOTNEWS has been satisfied, I would say. There has been a steady stream of coverage concerning this case now since at least the penultimate week of July (see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this for examples), and but for the Olympics there may well have been much more. I know this sounds like a cliche now, as it seems to get pointed out in every afd debate of this type, but there are something like 700 murders committed annually in the UK, and the vast majority don't receive this level of coverage. One could argue it's missing white woman syndrome or some kind of sensationalist fascination with her private life, but the fact that many of the quality dailies (The Independent, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph) have picked up the story adds weight to the theory that this is not just a media frenzy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More outside UK interest here from The Irish Independent. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, flagging up another newspaper article, as noted, really doesn't make much difference either way. We know there is media coverage and that there will be more. And, whether the coverage is in the FT or the Star makes little difference really. Newspapers cover murders on which there is any angle, and they tend to do it as a group (not least because they take much of their copy from PA). Even the "quality" press is secretly fond of a little scandal and sensation. They then cover and follow up developments in such cases as and when they happen, which may be quite frequently. They do the same for love affairs, celebrity pregnancies, violent assaults and injuries/hospitalisations (see for example people who get injured abroad and are stuck there). The Mail website right now, for example, is littered with such stories, including at least four or five other "current" murder cases. Several of those will also be covered in the Guardian. Do these all need WP articles? Is there a policy mandating their inclusion that overrides WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT? I remain baffled by the need some people see for WP to include specific items about a single random event on the basis that there has been a couple of, or even quite a few, newspaper reports on said event and any immediately following developments. I can just about see the argument for an article when the case in question dominates news coverage during its moment in the sun (see Tia Sharp), on the "captured the media/public imagination in the summer of 2012" thesis. But even that's pretty weak, and no, definitely not this one. I can imagine, although I have not checked, that Tia Sharp has led most news bulletins and been on the front pages of most papers for several successive days. This story very definitely has not, nothing like it. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More outside UK interest here from The Irish Independent. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of coverage (which continues today with news of another arrest in connection with the case: see here) means WP:NOTNEWS has been satisfied, I would say. There has been a steady stream of coverage concerning this case now since at least the penultimate week of July (see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this for examples), and but for the Olympics there may well have been much more. I know this sounds like a cliche now, as it seems to get pointed out in every afd debate of this type, but there are something like 700 murders committed annually in the UK, and the vast majority don't receive this level of coverage. One could argue it's missing white woman syndrome or some kind of sensationalist fascination with her private life, but the fact that many of the quality dailies (The Independent, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph) have picked up the story adds weight to the theory that this is not just a media frenzy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Tia Sharp argument could be in danger of falling into the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category, I fear. The truth is this has received over and above the coverage required for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, and there is some international coverage, which many UK based murders do not get. WP:PERSISTENCE is also satisfied because we have several weeks of coverage in multiple media. I really fail to understand why we need to have this argument every time someone creates an article about a notable murder case. Perhaps it's time to set out some very specific guidelines on this issue, or it will keep happening. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not otherstuff, because I'm contrasting two cases to illustrate where the boundary might lie - I'm not saying we do or don't have X therefore we should or shouldn't have Y. Also, as I've said here and elsewhere, I don't think the persistence criteria is met - we have media coverage spread over weeks because developments occur in the case and the media report them as and when they happen. They're still reporting on the same event, or series of sub-events, on and off, in proximity to them. It's basic news reporting, it's not some notable thing being referred to or analysed retrospectively. I agree though some clearer guidelines are needed to avoid endless such debates - I think most of these "Murder of .." entries on WP are daft, just as "Assault of ...", "Kidnapping of ...", "Marriage of ..." would be, but I acknowledge there is a fundamental divide of principle here and plenty of people create them, like them and defend them, often simply on the basis of the cases having been reported contemporaneously in newspapers. For me, neither common sense nor general notability policy as it stands mandate inclusion on that rationale alone. As I say, with Tia Sharp, a case can be made (although I disagree with it) on the basis of a case being front-page news for successive days for an extended period while it is current, and that any specific guidelines could be worded to instruct us to take account of that kind of thing; on this case, which pops up on the inside pages from time to time, it seems a slam-dunk that it doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, and that any new guidelines should clarify that. Anyway, I've said far too much already - as you say, much of this belongs in another venue. N-HH talk/edits 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your argument for this article vs the Tia Sharp case, though I'm not sure it couldn't be classed as otherstuff. It could be seen as a case of "topic a isn't as important as topic b so topic a should go". The media coverage for both is significant so each should be judged on its own merits. I think many of these articles appear because of a genuine belief in their notability, and there's no doubt crimes of this nature both fascinate and appall in equal measures. But enough of my ramblings as that's really for another place. Below are some of the guidelines I believe this meets:
- WP EVENT
- An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
- Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
- Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.
- The article meets all three of these criteria.
- WP NOTNEWS
- Not written as a piece of journalism, or with a "breaking news" slant. As WP:NOTNEWS has a signpost referring users to WP:EVENT, then I feel the latter is the important aspect to consider here.
- WP PERSISTENCE
- Passes this because of the sheer volume of coverage over several weeks, far beyond the usual "news spike". Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP N/CA
- The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged.
- Definitely passes this since detectives concluded criminal activities were afoot several weeks ago, and now have a body and suspects. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you're misquoting and misreading that part of the guideline as if it says any disappearance suspected of being due to a criminal act should have a WP entry. Of course it doesn't say, or mean, that. What it says, more fully and with my emphasis, is: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines". And of course, I dispute that this case meets the bar set by the other parts of the guidelines, which have also been selectively quoted above, by relying on the section sub-headings rather than than the actual text content. The effect of that is to simply highlight what characteristics those guidelines suggest would normally be seen with notable events - and through that, argue that these are the criteria for notability; and that because this case appears to meet them, the criteria are satisfied. Confusing basic characteristics or the bare minimum with the threshold is one of the most basic logical fallacies going. Noted actors will usually have appeared in several successful films - not everyone who has appeared in several succesful films is a noted actor; some are extras. N-HH talk/edits 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I quite see the the point of the film analogy, but never mind. Basically though, to summarise your point, you're saying that guideline doesn't apply. Even if that is the case (and incidentally I picked it up from a debate that's going in parallel with this one where it was quoted in much the same way) there are plenty of others listed above that do. And actually, I did fully read the guidelines. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amd more ongoing coverage today. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there's more coverage, as, again, no one has ever denied there would be. I have no idea why you keep posting daily news updates here. Someone else has been arrested and so the media report that. There'll be a trial, or trials, and they'll report that too, somewhere down the running order or in the inside pages of the press. None of this has anything to do with anything. And if you don't understand the actor/film analogy or the logical fallacy entailed in moving from "thing X is likely to have characteristic Y" to "anything with characteristic Y must be of sort thing X" then I'm at a loss as to what else to say (which may be a good thing). If WP wants to be the place to come to for a round-up of the Press Association's UK crime and courts reporting over the years, good luck to it. It's already the porn star and Pokemon character directory after all. But you guys better get busy - there are an awful lot of killings and other crimes that are seeing ongoing coverage of new developments, eg this one and this one; or this "Disappearance of .. " story - over 120 news reports according to Google News, with coverage in the Scottish and regional press, national UK media and Gulf news sites too, going back months. And we've missed literally thousands from other countries and other decades. N-HH talk/edits 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amd more ongoing coverage today. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I quite see the the point of the film analogy, but never mind. Basically though, to summarise your point, you're saying that guideline doesn't apply. Even if that is the case (and incidentally I picked it up from a debate that's going in parallel with this one where it was quoted in much the same way) there are plenty of others listed above that do. And actually, I did fully read the guidelines. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you're misquoting and misreading that part of the guideline as if it says any disappearance suspected of being due to a criminal act should have a WP entry. Of course it doesn't say, or mean, that. What it says, more fully and with my emphasis, is: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines". And of course, I dispute that this case meets the bar set by the other parts of the guidelines, which have also been selectively quoted above, by relying on the section sub-headings rather than than the actual text content. The effect of that is to simply highlight what characteristics those guidelines suggest would normally be seen with notable events - and through that, argue that these are the criteria for notability; and that because this case appears to meet them, the criteria are satisfied. Confusing basic characteristics or the bare minimum with the threshold is one of the most basic logical fallacies going. Noted actors will usually have appeared in several successful films - not everyone who has appeared in several succesful films is a noted actor; some are extras. N-HH talk/edits 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not otherstuff, because I'm contrasting two cases to illustrate where the boundary might lie - I'm not saying we do or don't have X therefore we should or shouldn't have Y. Also, as I've said here and elsewhere, I don't think the persistence criteria is met - we have media coverage spread over weeks because developments occur in the case and the media report them as and when they happen. They're still reporting on the same event, or series of sub-events, on and off, in proximity to them. It's basic news reporting, it's not some notable thing being referred to or analysed retrospectively. I agree though some clearer guidelines are needed to avoid endless such debates - I think most of these "Murder of .." entries on WP are daft, just as "Assault of ...", "Kidnapping of ...", "Marriage of ..." would be, but I acknowledge there is a fundamental divide of principle here and plenty of people create them, like them and defend them, often simply on the basis of the cases having been reported contemporaneously in newspapers. For me, neither common sense nor general notability policy as it stands mandate inclusion on that rationale alone. As I say, with Tia Sharp, a case can be made (although I disagree with it) on the basis of a case being front-page news for successive days for an extended period while it is current, and that any specific guidelines could be worded to instruct us to take account of that kind of thing; on this case, which pops up on the inside pages from time to time, it seems a slam-dunk that it doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, and that any new guidelines should clarify that. Anyway, I've said far too much already - as you say, much of this belongs in another venue. N-HH talk/edits 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there will be more coverage, which I acknowledged already. But the point is, will that simply be fairly bog-standard - forgive the phrase - rolling mentions of an ongoing disappearance and later murder investigation and then regular court reporting of the subsequent trial, possibly with a bit more detail becaise of any sensationalist aspects? Does every death or murder, or even personal injury or assault, that gets more than a day's worth of reporting, for the event itself and then any subsequent trial, get a WP entry, simply because it "has sources"? You can plausibly make a case for a death that has led the headlines for several days (although personally I think that still fails not news, without any lasting impact or consequence for society as a whole), but this one really, really has not even done that. And no we don't know that it will not have a lasting effect - but we don't know that it will. The "speculation" point applies just as much to any "Keep" arguments as to any "Delete" ones; in fact it applies more strongly. N-HH talk/edits 08:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above reasons. Autarch (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- at least for the moment. We get a lot of articles on murders that are heavily covered in the news. They usually end off getting retitled as "murder of foo". The time to judge this is a few months after a person is convicted of the murder. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete WP:NOTNEWS. It's a news story, but where's the encyclopedic relevance? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - we are past the news-spike period now, yet this story keeps surfacing due to multiple issues about both the victim, the method of disaperance/murder, and the now multiple suspects. A good piece in the middle of this debate by Paul MacDermott made up my mind, on top of the significant and continuing national and international news coverage. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no, the story keeps surfacing because, like most crime investigations, it's a developing news story. That does not make it an encyclopedia topic, whether judged by rational common sense standards or by what guidelines actually say as opposed to a selective and generous interpretation of them. And no, reports in the Irish Independent - which regularly covers news from across the Irish Sea - based primarily on syndicated PA copy do not count as "significant .. international news coverage". N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also the International Business Times, which I used as a reference in the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope after 6+ years and 91k edits I can tell the difference between a replicated PA News release and a genuine new report that would pass WP:REF. If it's making news in Libya and has multiple hits on MSNBC, that concludes international. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one brief mention on one Libyan news site. She used to work in Libya and I have no doubt that, if not replicated directly, it is mostly sourced from UK wire and other media copy. As for the msnbc link, the text excerpts suggests those results are repeated versions of the same report, and from where I'm sitting, the internal links go to video clips that say nothing about the case. I did find what appears to be a text version of that report, here, which reveals that it is also one very short piece, and one explicitly cobbled together by cutting and pasting from UK reports. I'm sure there are a few more around. But how low does our bar go? I guess you'll also have seen my lengthy comment on the Tia Sharp AFD as to where guidelines suggest that bar is (and at least with that case it can be said that reports have been splashed across UK front pages and at the head of news bulletins, which is very definitely not the case here). N-HH talk/edits 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well no, the story keeps surfacing because, like most crime investigations, it's a developing news story. That does not make it an encyclopedia topic, whether judged by rational common sense standards or by what guidelines actually say as opposed to a selective and generous interpretation of them. And no, reports in the Irish Independent - which regularly covers news from across the Irish Sea - based primarily on syndicated PA copy do not count as "significant .. international news coverage". N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons given above by Paul MacDermott. -- The Anome (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - obviously passes WP:GNG, but I am concerned about more Missing white woman syndrome articles. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Worthy of an encyclopedic article. Am always suprised when 'has no lasting notability' is quoted. How do we know that at this time?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't know that it is notable in any enduring sense, but think it should have an article? Where is the policy or guideline that says that? I'm always surprised when this argument gets deployed in favour of keeping pages and when people justify articles speculatively. On that basis, we should have an article on every single Equity member who's ever been mentioned in arts coverage, on the basis that we "can't be sure" they won't one day be notable actors. N-HH talk/edits 07:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to respond to a couple of points made above. I suspect a lot of the Tia Sharp stuff is also duplicated by various publications. This, for example was probably picked up from another source and I doubt a local newspaper from the Midlands actually sent someone to London to cover the story (could be wrong though). But as I said the other day, these two cases are separate and must be judged on their own merits. Also nobody has suggested we should have an article on every single murder case, because clearly most wouldn't be of encyclopedic content. If you feel strongly about this issue then open a discussion about it at the relevant place and suggest some guidelines. An afd discussion isn't really the place for that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2012 (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.