Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benoit family tragedy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alexandria (talk | contribs) at 20:01, 13 July 2007 (→Section 2: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Benoit family tragedy

Benoit family tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page shouldn't have been created. Per consensus on the talk page on the Chris Benoit article this page was opposed to for numerous reasonins. Please see [[1]] for further details. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Section 1

  • Keep, I think it should be kept for the moment, but it could get possibly deleted in a few months time. I created this page, as the Benoit article was starting to get overloaded with stuff, and thought it would be best to start a new page. Davnel03 08:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ::For the record, I'm not saying I necessarily support a deletion, however I would prefer a consensus be hacked out for a final measure as to whether it should exist or not. Which is why I brought it up for deletion, so that a forced consensus could be made as to whether or not it should stay or it should go. I am actually neutral as far as to whether this article deserves to have it's own page, I do however believe that the creator should have probably waited before creating it. Wikidudeman (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge. Not worth its own article, but most of the information should be included. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect already covered in the Benoit article. Redirect to it. Lugnuts 10:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and lock, this article should redirect to Chris_Benoit and it should be locked to prevent recreation. So like those above me, I vote to NOT keep this article JayKeaton 10:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge NO lock. The information can fit on the Benoit article for now. However, there has been extensive conversation on the Chris Benoit talk page as to whether the article should be split. The consensus now seems to be against it, but this may not be true in a few weeks. We will see what information arises, and the popularity of this issue and make the decision then. CraigMonroe 13:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be a separate article. <KF> 14:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge, no lock. We don't need a separate article at this point. Give it another month or two and, once we've pared down the information that inevitably gets added due to recentism, we'll see if there's enough material to warrant a separate article on the murder-suicide. For now, though, leave it on the main Benoit article. Rdfox 76 14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. It's already covered in the Chris Benoit article. There's no point in having a separate article. Legendotphoenix 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now, probably reopen in a few months' time, if there is consensus at the Benoit talk page. SalaSkan 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't suppose that this is because folks here are embarassed by the Wikipedia Controversy, mentioned in the article. Everyone in this discussion is oddly silent about that one, which made national news when someone posted the news of Mrs. Benoit's death several hours before it was discovered. Sometimes, the medium is the message. Mandsford 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'm rather fed up of the arguing over this. This event is clearly notable in its own right, for different reasons why the life of Chris Benoit is distinct. With the coverage it has attracted, and the volume of media discussion about professional wrestling, this event - as didtinct from the life of Chris Benoit - already shows signs of altering the professional wrestling world significantly. Therefore it needs a separate article and, frankly, given that there are people who believe this, I find the stubborn opposition of others to the very idea to be disturbing. Lordrosemount 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's one of the primary reasons that I created this article, because this will probably affect WWE and Professional Wrestling as a whole for the forseeable future, and I can see this being mentioned still in the next 2 - 3 months. Davnel03 17:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The tragedy has received extensive media coverage. The main article is titled Chris Benoit and not specifically about the tragedy. Many articles have specific titles to cover a specific topic such as the the Execution of Saddam Hussein. As we speak, there is specific media coverage on this specific event. Simply put, the title matches the event.  QuackGuru  talk 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the event in itself is notable enough to warrant its own article. As long as WP:RS, and WP:V are strictly enforced within the article, I see no problems with keeping it. 82.27.21.157 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Well sourced and with a large number of notable media references. Uncomfortable subject matter does not merit the WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. Do NOT merge the article back into Chris Benoit, as stated - the precedent of Execution of Saddam Hussein existing as a separate article to Saddam Hussein. --Eqdoktor 18:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge This is an encyclopedia, and we need to make overviews of things. Spinning things off to other articles isn't what an encyclopedia should do. We should give a simple/fact-based version of the events, and keep it on the Benoit page for now. Also, if this page is kept, could we please change the title of it? Putting "tragedy" (even if most would agree that it is) is a real non-NPOV word. It should be something like "Benoit family homicide" or the like. Dannycali 19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, this can be covered on Chris Benoit's page, no doubt his death will end up being what his is remembered for and most looking for his name in the future will be looking for these details. Redirect all versions of the title to Chris Benoit and put the info there. Darrenhusted 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge I've been following the story for around two weeks, which included frequent checking of the Chris Benoit article. At one time pretty much the entire Benoit family tragedy article, as it is now, was a part of Chris Benoit, and should never have been moved to it's own article in the first place. Unless it's a mass murder, under most circumstances a person killing someone else, or themselves, or both, is not criteria for a wikipedia article. Yes, Chris Benoit is a fairly well known figure, but outside of the context of his biography, the events described in the article are not notable. Calgary 19:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This specific event had significant major media coverage by multiple sources. Plenty of information and sources to meet WP:NOTE and warrant it stay as a standalone article. -Nv8200p talk 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to you aln all the other beople who point out media coverage Media coverage alone is not enough to make an event notable. Chris Benoit is a well known figure, and a double-murder suicide is unusual to say the least, so it's natural that it would recieve media coverage. Still, even if he had died in a car accident, the media would have covered it, because of who he is, but there wouldn't have been an article for Benoit family car accident]. Also, think about this. There was even more media coverage of Paris Hilton going to jail, but for obvious reasons we don't have a Paris Hilton's jail sentence article. Calgary 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this different is that it involves so many people: his doctor, the companies who supplied drugs, WWE, the coincidental Wikipedia editor, the mass media alleging steroids, etc. It's become its own event! True, the media covers just about everything, but Benoit's actions' effects themselves have made this notable. Plus, if this was merged back into the main article, I see it becoming too long in the future. This timeline should stay but with a new name. D4S 20:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge There is no reason the information can't be reedited on the Chris Benoit page, that was the overwhelming consensus, and this page was just created because someone wasn't getting their way. It can be pared down on the chris benoit page, and there is no reason why it should not be. The argument that it's too large could be said of his "wrestling" career, since it dominates the page and is scripted. It's the equivalent of having, say, Bender from Futurama's page including his entire history episode by episode. DurinsBane87 20:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen... this? This AfD is about this page, not Benoit's wrestling career, considering his stature as a wrestler the page size is about right, and as for the "scripted" remark, clearly you are not a fan of the wrestling arts. Darrenhusted 20:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That article doesn't have an episode by episode layout of Bender's existence, and I understand it's not about his wrestling career. If you thought I did, you missed the point I was trying to make. DurinsBane87 05:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect there is no reason why this information cannot remain at Chris Benoit. Brutal case of recentism and an unnecessary article. Resolute 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a clearly notable event, and there's so much information about it that it's worth having its own article, per WP:SUMMARY. I also think it's worth moving to its own article, so that it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the information at the main bio. Let's not make the circumstances of his death, the most notable thing about his life. --Elonka 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2

  • Merge back onto the Chris Benoit article; consensus was to not create a second article about it. Title does not reflect a neutral tone either. — Moe ε 23:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most discussed crimes of 2007, should clear the notability hurdle with room to spare. Mystery Meat 01:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue isn't notability. You should read the arguments before you vote. DurinsBane87 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue is still notability. Is it a notable event/crime, or is it just a detail in the life of Chris Benoit? My opinion is that this goes way beyond a biographical detail; I think it's actually more notable than Benoit himself, because I've heard a lot about this but never even heard of Benoit beforehand. If it was merged, I'll tell you exactly what would happen: it would be way too much content, way too much to cover amidst all the other info on Benoit, so deletionists would say that they need to trim the coverage on this event and keep it short, and they'd jabber about "recentism" (at least one person above is already trying to play that card). The inclusionist solution, on the other hand, is to split off the detail, leaving plenty of space for thorough coverage. So participants in this discussion should be very clear: voting keep means this event will be covered comprehensively, and voting delete or merge means it will receive only a brief summary inadequate to the needs of many readers. Everyking 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Benoit article until suitable information is found, or at least until all edit wars/speculation die down --SteelersFan UK06 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Reason is, it'll eventually have it's own article, why not now? let's face it, the whole crime and the scrutiny professional wrestling has had to endure in the last two weeks, not to mention the backlash this is going to have in a countless amount of things, such as the WWE is concerned and also wrestlers, this deserves it's own article. -- Shatterzer0 05:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge-There's nothing encyclopedic about it. It's not a substantially notable historical event. (As opposed to WWII or something like that). The reason why it's a popular media headline is because it just happened so it's hype, and it'll be old news and almost forgotten a year from now. --VorangorTheDemon 05:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, this crime is not as notable as World War II. Almost nothing is that notable. I would tell you that Wiki is not paper, but even paper encyclopedias include things far less notable than World War II. We require notability, as in something we have a few independent non-trivial sources for, not substantial notability as a historical event. Everyking 08:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A family tragedy is in no way encyclopedic, it belongs in an article. And Paris Hilton's prison time is also an event that probably equals this one in notablility, but would you mind explaining to me why an article hasn't been started on it if one on this event has? You're being inconsistent. There's nothing encylopedic or notable about any family involved in murder-suicide. It belongs in the involved subject's article, or perhaps as a reference if there is an article on murder suicide. 90% of the stuff in the article for this event has no encyclopedic value, Wiki encyclopedic or paper encyclopedic. And a consensus was already done, and the opposal of the creation of this article won. It should be removed. --VorangorTheDemon 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be quite strongly in favor of having an article on Paris' legal troubles. Notability is measured by the attention something receives or the importance people attached to it. I don't care if it's a jail sentence, a murder-suicide, or somebody stubbing his toe—I'm only interested in whether the sources indicate a sufficiently high level of attention from other people. Note also that this AfD enjoys broader participation than the article talk and therefore is more representative of community views. Everyking 23:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • An article about Paris' legal troubles? How is that encyclopedic? To be honest, who is really going to care a few months from now? I suppose now you want to write one about Mel Gibson's legal troubles, Britney Spears' breakdown and shaving her head, and the Duff Lohan catfights? Those also garnered media attention, but are perfectly fine without articles dissecting a small part of their lives. If this is so important, where's the separate article for Bob Woodruff and his recovery after being attacked in Iraq? That captured America's attention as well. You're inconsistent and seem to want to jump on something the minute it happens. You really need to sit down and ask yourself "Is anyone going to care about this a year from now?" or in this case, "Will anyone remember Chris Benoit's name in 2008?" Other than the informed wrestling fan, the answer is a loud and resounding "No". Jezebel Parks 07:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • It doesn't matter one bit whether the general population will care or not care at any given time in the future. We should be recording things that are considered important now or were considered important in the past. It can be taken for granted that it will be useful to at least somebody in the future. I think the "big picture" deletionist perspective on notability is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, a holdover view influenced by paper encyclopedias, and counter-productive to our goal of providing information. I assure you I am not inconsistent in the least and I am in favor of having an article on anything that receives a sufficient degree of attention combined with a sufficient degree of available detail to fill up an independent article. Everyking 08:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chris Benoit. Classic case of recentism. If the article is kept, I suggest a name change to Benoit family murder-suicide or something like that. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I think it should be shortend (a bit) and merged with Chris Benoit as a new section. --User:130.89.166.51
  • Strong Keep too large to merge into the Benoit article, noteworthy --Naha|(talk) 19:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a feeling we might as well stop now. This is a clear No Consensus. --SteelersFan UK06 20:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - This is properly part of Chris Benoit and should be addressed there, not in a separate article. MSJapan 20:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Chris Benoit article will get rather big if we had all of this in the article. Besides, in an article like this we can have more on the reactions from wrestlers and the WWE. --Plasma Twa 2 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Chris Benoit article. It can be cut down to reduce article size if necessary, but I don't feel it's necessary to have its own article. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 22:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep One of the biggest news stories of 2007. If this doesn't meet the criteria for notability, I don't what know what does. Phediuk 23:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As it is explained above, the issue is not notability. It is about whether there is actually enough relevant information to support an article. Not all the facts are known. Once they are, that article would be nothing more than a stub. And it definitely wasn't one of the biggest news storie of '07. We hardly heard about it up here in New England. Jezebel Parks 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, if you'll notice, there's actually already easily enough information to support an article, even with not all the facts being known yet. So when more info is available, won't your case become weaker, not stronger? Everyking 00:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Sometimes i think that the mods on here have too much time on their hands. just leave the page alone. This is an event that rocked the country's news for weeks. if this bothers you then delete JFK's assassination page. ohh "but he was a president"...so? (added by User:Bassman600)
A president who had intense dealings with the Cold War and who's assassination was and is still being reported all over, who spawned years and years of conspiracy theories, is FAR more notable than a wrestler on a scripted TV program. Do you really think that 10 years from now, people will say "oh, i remember where i was when they announced the Chris Benoit died."??? chris benoits deathh was reported for a few weeks. tops. i havent seen a news story in the paper about it in awhile. JFK was reported on for much longer, plus has thousands of books written on the subject. JFK was world famous BEFORE he was assassinated. plus there's ridiculous controversy about his assassination. Chris Benoit's case is fairly clean cut. He only became a household name after he killed himself. and in a few weeks, if you mention it to an average person who doesnt watch wrestling, they probably won't remember his name. DurinsBane87 00:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It was fine as it was in the Chris Benoit article. If it gets too long like people have said, then shorten it. There were ceratinly parts of it that didn't need to be there before the second article was made. Arrowny 00:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't care if it stays or goes, but if it stays, it must be renamed. A less melodramatic title, please. · jersyko talk 03:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chris Benoit. It is already covered in the main article. There is no article of the death of, say, Sherri Martel. bibliotheque (Talk) 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The vast and I mean vast majority of hits on the Chris Benoit page are people looking for this article's details. The level of detail here, is *not* covered in the main article, and if it were it would probably get cut down by cutter-downers. It's much better to have it a seperate article to satisfy all sides. Wjhonson 06:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that would satisfy all sides, then why are we even having this debate? The main argument is that this page was made despite consensus against it. Keeping it would not satisfy those arguing for its deletion, obviously. Jezebel Parks 07:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It is an episode in an etertainer's life, but it is not the whole story. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Redirect, Lock - The article should never have been created. A separate article is not warranted. It is not notable enough. The Hybrid 12:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Redirect & Lock echoing the above. Another example of news conflation, in violation of WP:NOT. Send it back to the Benoit page where it belongs. Eusebeus 12:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that this is a major event that should be covered extensively. And Benoit's life before this happened should be covered in his main biography. He shouldn't only be remembered for this event, but the event needs to be covered...hence we need two seperate articles. --SGT Tex 14:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because.
  • Keep - The circumstances of the events are large and complex enough that to present them properly in Wikipedia requires a separate entry since Chris Benoit already had a notable life and career before the murders took place. In the interest of keeping an accurate entry on the events in Wikipedia without making the Chris Benoit article far too long, it needs a separate page.Rebochan 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - James Kim doesn't (and shouldn't) have a Kim family tragedy article, so why should this guy? Plus, which news article even calls it Benoit family tragedy? The very title violates WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP Misterdiscreet 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominate you to write the article on Kim's ordeal and his demise. Seriously, "other people haven't written some other article yet, so delete this one" is the worst deletionist argument ever. Everyking 05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • why would i write an article on a subject i already said shouldn't have one? that makes about as much since as me telling you to delete James Kim, even though you've already suggested it be expanded into another article Misterdiscreet 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A great big reminder to everyone: This discussion is half-pointless (basically, we're on the wrong forum and we don't have a "Requested Merges Or Else" forum). At this point, it's abundantly clear that the topic is worth discussing. Before commenting, please read the nomination: the big question, as always in AfDs is, do we need this article? In other words - should this particular death be discussed in main article, or in an article of its own; in most cases, such things are discussed in main articles? So please, don't just say "keep" because you think the topic is notable - we already know it is. It looks to me that we're ending into a dead end in regards to whether or not this needs to be merged because we get distracted by this issue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I pointed out above, notability is in fact a key issue here. We can be fairly certain that, if a merge takes place, many of the details will be trimmed out to save space, so the only way to have comprehensive coverage of the subject is to have an independent article. So, is the subject notable enough to warrant comprehensive coverage? Everyking 10:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Let me make myself more clear: The existence of notability is irrelevant because the answer is obviously positive; the amount of notability is in doubt. The question isn't "is this notable", but "how notable is it". It would be terribly nice to, for once, get a straight answer to a merge-or-not question in AfD; it rarely happens, because people are scared that someone says "delete every reference of this incident from Wikipedia", which is not - and never has been - the point of AfD. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge. Doesn't justify its own article especially with this name. Salathi 11:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't quite understand where all of these people are coming from, possibly some message board with the idea that this is a "vote" opposed to consensus decision. I don't even believe there is a consensus, it seems that it's about cut 50/50 for merge/delete/redirect vs keep. I don't think we'll get much out of this any longer, It should probably be kept until a consensus can be formed. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 3

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benoit_family_tragedy&oldid=144467307"