Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jeff Whittington (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Consensus herein is that the topic is notable and for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jeff Whittington

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the last AfD was almost 3 years ago with no consensus. whilst the murder is unfortunate, I don't see how it meets WP:VICTIM or WP:EVENT LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to sites and trade publications, this murder has been included in various scholarly publications. Books: here, Dissertations/thesis: here, and here. Articles: here, here. Additionally, it is in a university course here. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 05:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pretty trivial mentions, although they might add up to enough. Specially as they are pretty decent sources. AIRcorn (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Leaning keep~~-- is there any reason to think that a consensus has changed to delete? No reason has been given by the nominator other than that three years has passed (and why does that matter?). Looks like it meets WP:GNG to me, and per Caballero certainly has more than passing coverage in news sources; being the subject of at least some scholarly research makes me pretty confident that the subject is notable. The fact there was play based on the murder does add weight as well. -- Shudde ^talk 09:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per this source [1] (which would have taken the nominator a minute to find on google). Published this year and discussing the crime and it's aftermath. Establishes that there is continuing coverage. -- Shudde ^talk 09:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Shudde's source is part of a series on murdered children run by the stuff website, it combined with the other coverage is enough to push this into WP:GNG territory and show some lasting impact. AIRcorn (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable. J 947 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the persuasive sources brought by User:Caballero1967, I ran a news archives search, coming up not only with coverage of the event, trial, appeals by thee convicted murderers, and so forth, but with additional coverage, including coverage in The Dominion Post (Wellington) that includes, for example, coverage of a play about the event [2] (Stage take on teenager's killing: [2 Edition] CARDY, Tom. Dominion Post [Wellington, New Zealand] 27 Mar 2007). Certainly, this death attained national notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2016 (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.