Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camrose cat killing

Camrose cat killing

Sad story but blatantly violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Replace by a mention in the Camrose, Alberta and Microwave-related injury articles. Canjth (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very STRONG Keep Notable event. Our article covers something like a six month timespan from the event to trials, and there is probably more to come. NOT:NEWS refers to "routine news coverage" like sporting events. We are summarizing and recording an ongoing collection of events; each minor event has several news articles. It has five references over this time period. The event itself has created controversy for the act itself, and for the way Canadian media law treats minors suspected of crimes. That takes it beyond the simple tragedy story. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Very STRONG Delete The only controversy was that the media picked up on a couple of Facebook comments and turned this into something more than it actually was -- petty vandalism. If that meet notability, then so be it, but my vote remains. Carson (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this may be true, the JonBenét Ramsey case has had more media hours than Michael Jackson has sold Thriller albums despite being fairly insignificant. No, it's not always what one would call fair or reasonable what the media does, but what the media does follow is then notable. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there may be references in the media, this may indeed have to do with the fact that it is a current/ongoing event. Although at the moment the story may be of some interest, I find it highly unlikely that this notability will not be considered to be temporary once the event itself has concluded. Also, if this is indeed several minor events, each covered separately by the sources used, being summarized in a single article and treated as a single event, then wouldn't that make it a sort of synthesis of information? Calgary (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One might suggest here that notability does not diminish over time. Furthermore, ongoing events are not barred from Wikipedia. The notability of an subject does not depend on its lasting impact under WP:NOTABILITY. Contrary to this, the policy is worded as follows: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Though one may criticise the media for its judgment, its impact on the public is unquestionable. 81.51.89.187 (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator on all points; this information can be put in other articles. It's a sad story, not notable enough for an article. Although the intent may be to prevent cruelty to animals, the author's focus on the incident is just as likely to inspire similarly cruel acts. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news search shows a total of 30 articles related to this sick, sad, incident of cruelty, with many of them being rehashes of the same wire service coverage. That is not much compared to other "water cooler stories" which have been deleted on the ground that Wikipedia is not a crime log. This atrocity got a splash of coverage in the Canadian press, but did not lead to any new societal effects or laws, and was dealt with by the same means used aginst earlier young psychos who tortured animals. Things can be newsworthy without being encyclopedic, as expressed in the essay WP:NOTNEWS and the newer policy WP:NOT#NEWS. Edison (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]