Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Hudson

Rachel Hudson

Rachel Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Neither Rachel Hudson, nor her murderers' trial, has encyclopedic importance. Yes, the trial is the subject of multiple news articles. But, while media coverage is necessary for inclusion at Wikipedia, it's not sufficient. One of the rationales for the primary notability criterion is that we rely on the editorial judgment of reputable publishers as to a topic's importance: if they think it's important, we consider it worthy of inclusion here. But importance is not the only reason things get published. In general, when sources exist on a certain topic, we have to look at the reason the publisher decided to publish on that topic before we conclude that it's appropriate to have a Wikipedia article on the topic. We should ask, did the publisher consider the topic important or consequential in any way? In this case it should be clear that the BBC and other news organizations decided to publish articles about this trial only due to its sensational aspects: Rachel Hudson's brutal treatment and death at the hands of her own family was truly horrific and attention-grabbing. The trial had no importance, or consequences; as far as I can tell, it engendered no widespread discussion on crime and punishment or on the human capacity for cruelty (that's been around for a while now), and had no impact on the legal system or on society at large. In 100 years (even 10 years? even now?) this case will (has been?) surely and rightfully be forgotten, and almost surely not included in any history books. Rachel Hudson herself should, of course, not be forgotten, but that's no reason to keep the article here, because Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Note: De-prodded with comment "seems like there are reliable sources... perhaps it should be renamed, since it was the trial rather than the victim who was notable, but not deleted" -- as I have explained, I don't think either the victim or the trial has encyclopedic notability.) Pan Dan 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I hadn't even herd of this case, granted I do live in the US, before today. While the story is sad, heart-wrenching, and sick it still has not notability as the nominator points out. This is the kind of thing that, sadly, happens often enough that a brutal, cruel, terrible murder such as this doesn't raise an eyebrow once the commercial break starts. wtfunkymonkey 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Weak Delete It is always amazing how people writing in deletion debates can read the minds of publishers and decide what they were thinking when they published a story. To become encyclopedic, such a case would need to have a longer shelf life than "crime-arrest-trial-imprisonment." This might include a prolonged debate about the actual guilt, a retrial, and books and movies about the crime, such as In Cold Blood (book), In Cold Blood (film), Sam Sheppard, Charles Starkweather, Leopold and Loeb or Hawley Harvey Crippen, which focussed mostly on the thrill killers, or spree killers, not the victims, and some of which have passed the 50 year test if not yet the 100 year test. This is a horrible murder, following torment. Sadly, it is far from unique. If it becomes the subject of books, movies, scholarly analysis, etc. as did the other cases cited, then recreate the article. Edison 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It has ever been my understanding that crimes, criminals, and their victims form a partially unwritten exception to WP:BIO. Though many times they can easily be verified, and are the subjects of non-trivial news coverage, they nevertheless are routine and unremarkable. Only a few causes célèbres jump the hurdle of being things that people next year or a hundred years from now will be interested in. This case may be one of them, but the article does not make that case yet. Cheerfully open to revising my opinion if further evidence is mustered; from reading one of the BBC reports, this may go beyond a situation involving a violent family of degenerates and raise issues of bureaucratic incompetence as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is not a proper criterion, verifiability is. Wikipedia is not paper (and lots of paper was spent on this case). dml 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless this is turned into a biography. WP:BIO can't hold unless the sources actually provide biogrpahical information. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, to be fair, the argument on the other side would be that the article (if expanded) would be about the trial not the woman, and that therefore, what you say about WP:BIO is a reason to rename not delete the article. (Of course I disagree with that: as I said, neither the victim nor the trial is encyclopedically notable.) Pan Dan 00:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. Both sides raise valid points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotentot (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete. Non-notable bio, this is not of encyclopedic importance. --Sable232 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not everything verifiable is notable. This article certainly doesn't in present form make any assertion of real notability. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - I can see both sides of the issue. Perhaps more discussion is needed. (Liveforever22 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC))
• Strong Delete Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for article inclusion. Wikipedia is not a news report archive. Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability. This case doesn't seem to have generated exceptional levels of media coverage anyway. Bwithh 03:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• As an aside, Here's the apt essay from Orwell in response to Edison and Smerdis' comments... Bwithh 03:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable case. frummer 03:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and expand The story here, of course, isn't so much the the murder victim herself, but the bizzare circumstances of her death, the fact that her abuse apparently continued with no intervention from neighbors or authorities, and the British public's reaction (or lack thereof) to this incident.. WP:BIO is pretty specific, Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated , qualify. Whether that is due to sensational aspects or not is not part of the criteria, neither is anyone's opinion on the notability of the person in question, or the case they were involved in. The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person There's 4 separate BBC national news reports referenced, and there are certainly plenty of print reports... this is a pretty open and shut speedy keep case. Also, the perps have actually taken the distinction from the Sheriff as the most cruel person(s) ever from Nottingham. (Football fans excluded) That in itself has to have some notability. Tubezone 04:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Media coverage does not automatically translate to encyclopedic notability - the BBC, the New York Times, The London Times, CNN whatever... these are mainstream news channels which cover much non-encyclopedic material, including serious matters, on a daily basis. WP:BIO is a guideline. The primary purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, and not to be a news report archive. And there's no evidence that the murderers have displaced the Sheriff of Nottingham as a local icon except short-lived tabloid headlines. To be encyclopedic, there needs to be substantive evidence that this case has lasting social/political/cultural impact beyond personal tragedy/police log/media sensationalism e.g. if this case brings about a new law; if it inspires a movie; if it leads to creation of a significant charitable foundation etc. Bwithh 04:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith here, but it seems like you and some other British folk are engaging in some vanity denial, same way Richard J. Daley had the garage that the St. Valentine's Day Massacre took place in plowed under (there's no historical marker for that or the spot in Chicago where John Dillinger was gunned down, either, but if you ever visit, I'll point the spots out to you). WP:BIO states Subjective evaluations are irrelevant to determining the notability of a topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. Same criteria is why Elvira Arellano has an article... yes, I know about WP:INN, but her article survived an AfD based on the that criteria. The fact that it's embarassing to some folks or others would like to subjectively minimize the newsworthiness of the subject by declaring the news coverage to be sensationalistic is not part of the criteria. Fact is, much material in WP is decided to be encyclopedic by WP standards based on mentions in the same mainstream media, and plenty gets deleted due to lack of mentions in the same media.. because that's the standard set by WP:BIO. And, honestly, I think one could safely assume that books and other media on this weird crime will appear in the future, probably because it's embarrassing and sensational... and it's a fairly good wager some law might turn up to prevent a similar incident in the future. Now... how'd I get involved in two British related AfD's in one day? Oh, yeah, the other one was in the hoax-article category... Tubezone 05:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep While not every murder victim is notable, that is because not every murder victim recieves extensive coverage in independant, reliable sources This one does. Merely wanting murder victims to not received such coverage does not make it so. Where references exist to write a neutral, extensive article on a subject there is no compelling reason to delete the article. The sources exist. Not wanting them to exist does not make the subject non-notable. The existence of the sources and the depth of coverage means enough information can be used to write an article. Thus keep. --Jayron32 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tubezone. John Lake 05:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tubezone good arguments C.lettinga 06:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What possible benefit could come from deleting this? I really don't understand the deletionist mindset. --Zero^talk 11:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand- the horrific and unusual circumstances in themselves make the crime notable. Rob 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and seems important due to its sensational nature. Mus Musculus 15:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)