Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Melissa Ketunuti

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. MBisanz talk 01:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Melissa Ketunuti

edit
Murder of Melissa Ketunuti (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)

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS applies. Good people get killed everyday.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it bad that some people are deleting information with the edit summary that they could not find the information, yet if you read the reference you will find it. The result of removing information is that the article becomes a skeleton of an article, basically "a woman died". If an article is simply "a woman died" then I would agree that it looks like an easy delete decision when, in fact, it's a wrong decision influenced by misinformation read by the user. Gravelocator (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all that's happened. A woman died, it's solely being discussed within one city's press, except a British tabloid published a story on it. It cannot be the "big murder of the year or decade" because it's only January and they caught the killer within a short period of time. THere's nothing that makes this murder worthy of encyclopedic coverage because it has no impact.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FACT CHECKER: Philly.com called the coverage "relentless" which led to the hospital staff meeting at the chapel, which shows that it is the big murder of recent times. FACT CHECKER: It is NOT solely being discussed within one city's press. It is reported in Australia, Canada, UK, Philadelphia, Arizona, Georgia, Reuters (international press), US press (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), Washington DC, New York, Boston, etc. As far as no impact, there is discussion of tightening licensing laws because the alleged killer was not licensed.Gravelocator (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP is not breaking stories (1st criteria for deletion). This is not a breaking story.
2. WP should not use "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. This article is not #2.
3 and 4. This doesn't apply; these criteria are for who's who and diaries.
Therefore, all 4 criteria for deletion under NOTNEWS doesn't apply to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spevw (talk • contribs) 03:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Gravelocator is correct in that the murder is "plastered" over the Philadelphia news, then that should be a keep. The murders that are most high profiled and covered will generate traffic and interest to Wikipedia. I see that there is one article in the Metro Newspaper that says she was 1 of 6 murders in Philadelphia that weekend but a Google News search of the other 5 show extremely little or no coverage except for the 1/6 article. See http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/local/article/1160359--chop-doctor-melissa-ketunuti-was-one-of-six-homicide-victims-this-weekend This is objective proof that this murder is far more notable than the average murder (as the other 5 have virtually no coverage, making her's in the top percentile.) You are almost never going to get outside objective proof of notability but this Metro article is an exception and proves the point of notability.
I fully understand how people think WP is full of junk, articles on sex positions, video games, porn stars, high schools and think WP should only be about George Washington, Obama, France, etc. but by the criteria we are using, this article passes.
If the closing administrator is hell bent on deletion, I would recommend merge and redirect to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) because years from now, people will still inquire in WP about the CHOP doctor that was killed. There is a lot of detail in the article that will be permanently lost to research access if this is deleted. If merged, then if there is a huge upswing in interest after the trial, then we can reconsider and retrieve the data. Spevw (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A newsworthy story is not an encyclopedic event. That is what WP:NOTNEWS means. I doubt that this even requires any coverage on CHOP, either. She was murdered, this is bad. However, it's not something that is of note.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As horrid and sheer evil this particular murder seems to be, it does not seem to be sufficiently notable. It reads , rather, as an obituary, rather than being a proper subject of an article, for example with several sentences/infobits like: "She did one year of general surgery residency at Georgetown and had to switch to pediatrics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), where she initially had some academic difficulty, but took criticism well at CHOP". The info that a deceased doctor took criticisms well is an appropriate, and important, element in an obituary, but definitely not within an article.Arildnordby (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be precise. I find the article adequately sourced, sufficiently well-written and keeps its focus. It is the notability issue I have problems with.Arildnordby (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New information for the decider of this deletion attempt -
  • Only the one above delete comment by Arildnorby was done after major improvement of the article. Before, the article was written like crap but it is now much better. So, the bulk of the delete people were looking at the crap version before major improvement (acknowledged by Arildnorby).
  • One week after the murder, the murder is now covered on U.S. national TV on the show "Inside Edition". This is no obscure murder or memorial page. The event was also covered internationally and in other countries.
  • As it was mentioned above, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Some people do not want it saying it is not news. However, as someone pointed out, the NOTNEWS actually has 4 criteria, of which this article doesn't meet any of them, therefore, should remain as an article.,
  • I cannot help but wonder how many of the delete people are fundamentally opposed to "Murder of" articles, just like some are opposed to other kinds of articles. This article meets the criteria to be an article. Gravelocator (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please keep the discussion about whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, not about other editors. The question is not whether editors are fundamentally opposed to "Murder of" articles. It is whether Wikipedia should have an article for every murder. I'm still looking for some evidence of notability for this one. The fact that it's being reported as sensational news doesn't necessarily mean that it is sensational news. The article quality is perfectly OK, but that is not the point either. – Wdchk (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you think this is overall noteworthy, do you agree that even a well-written article like this contains stuff that should be purged, for example obituary-like info that Ketunuti took well to academic criticism? That shows she was a decent person, but is it noteworthy for Wikipedia that she was a decent person?Arildnordby (talk) 07:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually shooting yourself in the foot with the Inside Edition addition. IE is referred to quite commonly as a tabloid. Check here[1], here[2], and here[3] for three examples. WP:SENSATION reads "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting." Honestly you need to put things in perspective. This article is a clear case of recentism....William 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. heavily improved since afd started. It is a big story and seem to come over the notability threshold with this improved version.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although this case has made international news (perhaps unsurprisingly due to its grizzly nature), we need to ask whether it will have enduring notability. That is, will people remember it in the future? Right now I think it's too early to say, but if it became a watershed moment in the modification of a law or guideline then that situation would change. For those interested in a guideline for Wikipedia concerning this, I wrote an essay about crime-related articles a few months back, which might serve as a useful basis for any rules. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Murders like this happen EVERY DAY. While they will all have extensive local coverage, there is no evidence of this case having a lasting effect on society or affecting anyone other than the victim's friends and family. The duration and depth of media coverage likely will not last long anyway. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on errors of above delete comment. Murders like this do not "happen EVERY DAY". Name the murder than happened like this today. None exists. Name a murder today that was this well covered by reliable sources. None exists. Re-read the WP:EFFECT. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline,.....then read the general notability guidelines....this passes. Also re-read WP:EFFECT which says It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. The bottom line is that this article DOES meet the notability guideline in many ways, not just one. It also meets MANY criteria that the guidelines say, if met, makes it probably notable. Don't like the rules? Then write to WP to complain. Gravelocator (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete US coverage is STILL..local coverage. A man gets angry at "haughty" (she was not, but the article indicates HE thought so) client, kills her, and then tries to cover his tracks by a) making it look like a fire and b) trying to appear normal at other jobs. That¨s it in this case. There is no particular cruelty or bizarre motive here; nor is there any particularly interesting form of coverup, nor has the police work any extraordinary features. The only thing that seems to catch the eye about this case is that a professional exterminator killed his client. I don't think that is sufficient for notability.Arildnordby (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing that suggests this murder meets WP:N/CA and WP:CRIME. This case seems to have only WP:ROUTINE coverage in regards that there was press for the crime, trial, and sentencing, but no significant coverage beyond that had any lasting effects. The keep arguments largely seem caught either in personal opinion or based on the scale of the murder in terms of the city and the local. Wikipedia has mandates beyond. Lastly, the fail to adequately address the policies directly in how this article meets specific points in crime and event related Wikipedia policies. Mkdwtalk 06:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A number of other "Murder of ____" articles have withstood the deletion process according to my research. Such statement is often met with "other crap exists" but the fact that those other passed the deletion process says something. Also, even if you think it fails one guideline, as long as it passes another one, say, notability or general notability or something else, it qualifies for an article. The Barack Obama article fails the criteria for WP:MUSIC even though President Obama sings in public. Yet, that article passes the general notability guideline and is not subject to deletion. Gravelocator (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was not a routine murder (the kind that garner little or no publicity) and people will continue to seek information. This page will be quite useful as the trials and appeals happen and people turn to the Internet for information.Bundlesofsticks (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This IS, on basis of the FACTS, precisely a routine murder, with no significant particulars to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The ONLY unique detail here, is that it was a professional exterminator who became a murderer. That's it.Arildnordby (talk) 21:24, 3 February 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, MBisanz talk 21:56, 3 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Melissa_Ketunuti&oldid=1082410730"