Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meredith Emerson

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. Nakon 21:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Emerson

NN murder victim, quotidian crime. We are unable to write a biography of Ms. Emerson, because there aren't multiple non-trivial reliable sources about her disinteresting life. The crime which is her death is 12:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)also not remarkable, although of course reported on by the media, as all murders are. WP:V and WP:N refer. Delete. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'uninteresting', not 'disinteresting'. The latter isn't even a word. Other than that, I agree with your stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be best (talk • contribs) 03:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 'Disinteresting' is indeed a word, derived from 'disinterest'. Technically it shouldn't be used as synonymous with 'uninteresting' but in practice it increasingly is. tomasz. 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see your normative point. Thankfully, my liberal linguistics professors taught me that there is no one right way to speak (really?) and that it's counterproductive-bordering-on-racist to be normative about language. I didn't agree with them then, but I will now :) Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not racist to use the right word. 'Disinterest' means 'objective, unbiased'. 'Uninteresting' means 'boring, of no interest, no importance' etc. People mix up 'who's' and 'whose' all the time too, but that doesn't make it right. However, this is an uninteresting digression, and as a disinterested commentator, I will desist.Be best (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, in certain faculties of certain universities, they are keenly on alert for any manifestation of racism. You see, the notion of a 'standard' dialect is an inherently racist concept, as the 'standard' one is normally just set to the one spoken by the straight white men with money and in power. Didn't you know? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really that insecure that you have to call anyone who corrects your language usage a racist? --Koreanjason (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Being a murder victim is not a claim to notability. Reso lute 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, how about merging with an entry on the murderer or an entry on the murder(s) themselves which are pretty macabre? El Puello Diablo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not a notable crime. Encyclopedias are not crime blotters. Dahmer yes, Berkowitz yes, jack the Ripper yes, Emerson no. That's Allstate's stand. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story was front page news on CNN.com and most other news outlets. See any of those other sources to cross-reference or fill in the details. Moreover, her murderer is suspected of being a serial killer,[1] making the crime all the more notable. MaxVeers (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another day, another grisly murder. Move on please, there's nothing notable here. WWGB (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is my biggest problem with Wikipedia, the alleged free encyclopedia. There are other murder victims on this reference Web site, so how come not her? Wikipedia would be doing the public and journalists a huge disservice if the death of Meredith Emerson was not written about. And let's not forget that major newspapers and networks have been following this story. - Newseditor76, 5:47 p.m. EST, Jan. 9, 2008.
- Would you please express your argument in terms of policy or practice? Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might you all wish to see Jose Luis Aquino and Zaydra Pena who were both murder victims WHO BELONGED TO A SEMI-NOTABLE BAND but which the article was unfairly deleted and the idea was rejected at WP:DRV with but three votes to thecontrary of my well-explained reasoning? You might want to think about not deleting articles that DROVE FEAR INTO THE HEARTS OF MANY before keeping simple ones like this. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not misuse this deletion debate. It is not the place for you to contest previous deletions or object to core policies like WP:NOT. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the page because I found that the an entry for Meredith was on on MWWS page on wikipedia, but no article on her. It may be too early to say that if the article should be removed. If this article is being removed, then I think it would require review of other articles too, e.g. Chandra Levy - not sure how many of them still remember her.Chirag (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not even a good WP:Pokémon test! Chandra was going out with a United States Congressman for crying out loud! She was a major political scandal. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sad, but nothing remarkable. My rule of thumb for such cases would be if overseas news services would have picked it up, and I very much doubt they did. Thousands of people are murdered every year and only a few of them are more than a tragedy for the family and friends. Be best (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability is provided (for example, that this has received wide coverage from many news organisations, which doesn't seem to be the case). Murder victims are not automatically notable. Terraxos (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, the subject is a non-notable and one of thousands of people murdered each year. She is only known for one event: her death, thus fails WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the news, and it's not a memorial. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few days ago, I would have voted to delete this article, but since it turns out that Gary Hilton might be a Serial Killer, I believe that perhaps the article should be left intact until further information comes to light on the Hilton Case. If she was a victim of a serial killer, then the article should be part of a bigger article which would be more appropriate. --Hourick (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, major newspapers and networks, both nationally and internationally have reported on this case. If Wikipedia is truly an information source for everyone, especially journalists, then it has the responsibility to have an article about Gary Hilton and his victim and other possible victims. And I'm sorry for not doing this in the normal fashion but I don't have the time right now to learn Wikipedia's methods. I have deadlines and all. I'll try this weekend. --Newseditor76 (talk) 9:27 a.m., EST, Jan. 10, 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given by Ohconfucius. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until all the facts are known, esp about Gary Michael Hilton, leave this article on Wiki. This killing might be one of many, in which this info on Emerson would be part of a bigger story/article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.34.34 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The topic is unencyclopedic now, and we should delete it based on what it is now. If it becomes encyclopedic in the future, we can recreate the article then. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. There's enough verifiable information to have a short article here, but Wikipedia is not the news. I wouldn't mind seeing how this one pans out, then we could consider it for deletion at a later date.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* This entry should definately remain! This already has become a famous case and the history of such should be available to the public. If this article is deleted, then all entries in this forum regarding famous murder victims, such as The Black Dahlia, a famous story about a not so famous actress in the 40's should also be deleted. The only reason we should agree to remove this entry would be if her family so requested.GeorgiaGirl2 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- — GeorgiaGirl2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Arbeit Sockenpuppe (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your general point, it's worth noting that the Black Dahlia is an unsolved case, and as such generates a different kind of interest/notability. MaxVeers (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I find it disrespectful to her family and friends to have a wiki article describing her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.119.51 (talk • contribs)

Does that also apply to the thousands of other articles describing people's deaths? MaxVeers (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hilton is now being formally charged with the murder of a second hiker, and there is a possibility of connecting him to several more.[2] I would say this is a compelling reason to consider the article notable. MaxVeers (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it ironic: If anything, it's Hilton who would probably be notable, as a serial killer, but doesn't appear to have a article, yet quite a few here appear to be arguing to keep this article based on Hilton's notability. Shome mishtake shurely ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say the exact same thing. If anything, this article could be a redirect to Hilton's page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. There's an ancient debate about whether murderers or their victims are more "deserving" of an article (e.g. the Virginia Tech massacre) but I don't personally see a problem with it. MaxVeers (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable case of murder/disappearance. Covered by many international publications. --Plantron (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment Plus, it also falls into line of the Category:Murdered pregnant women. Murder being the number one reason for deaths of Pregnant women in the U.S. 1,800 are killed every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourick (talk • contribs) 16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. I was thinking of a totally different case. --Hourick (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Possible victim of a serial killer. Later on may be merged with articles of serial killer and his other victims. --Koreanjason (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gary Hilton is likely a longtime serial killer, and Meredith Emerson's murder was the notable exception in his string of Murders that brought an end to his killing. This is not "just another murder" as someone above has said. The victims were kidnapped (some out of their own homes) robbed, tortured, and robbed via ATM cards.. Later on may be merged with articles of serial killer and his other victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.70.73 (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 72.147.70.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak Keep - If additional information regarding Gary Hilton develops she may become more notable. Would recommend waiting before deleting to see how the case develops. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (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.