Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O. J. Simpson Las Vegas robbery case

[edit]

Suggest deletion per WP:NOT#NEWS this is little more than tabloid rubbish and is not fit for an encyclopedia. The "article" is also problematic under WP:BLP as much of the facts surrounding this case are not fully known. This warrants little more than a footnote under the main Simpson article. Burntsauce 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Its nice to see you throw AFD around so easily and the onus is on everyone else to say keep it. Anyways, as I said if nothing comes of this case by Wednesday September 19th, I will delete it.--Anais1983 21:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Where did this deadline come from? I could see an eventual merge if this doesn't turn out to be of lasting significance, but why would we pick such a soon date for this? Friday (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frday, I said Wednesday because he will see the judge Wednesday. Charges will either stick and a trial will be set or this may die down Wednesday --Anais1983 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the big deal? People made a quick article for Michael Vick right? This story will not go away and we should keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.78.130 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikinews - it's not significant enough to be a Wikipedia entry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently a notable chapter in his ongoing legal troubles with verifiable facts. Makes sense to keep as a separate article for clarity. If it all blows over if can be cut down or merged later. —dgiestc 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, transwiki & redirect, chapter in his life sure, but it doesn't need a separate article. KTC 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/delete WP:NOT investigative journalism, thats what Wikinews is for. Minor mention in the OJ Simpson biography is sufficient, a link to wikinews can be placed there. That is sufficient per our policies.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Alkivar. Encyclopedias provide summaries of people's lives, not select incidents in the lives of contemporary celebrities. It should be part of a general article on OJ Simpson, but the fact that it is occurring now does not mean that it merits separate mention. -- Danny 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia provides comprehensive information about notable events. It does not warrant coverage depending on when it takes place; it warrants coverage based on its notability as confirmed by the sources. Everyking 14:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge + Redirect + Wikinews A lot of the stars incidents doesn't deserve individual articles - and most of those doesn't have one since they aren't notable enough even though it a extensive news coverage (i.e Paris Hilton's drunk driving case or not even Phil Spector's murder trail case). A robbery is a robbery nomatter who did that. Like how mainly robberies are happening every day. No it should in Wikinews and merge to O.J. Simpson's article in a section about the incident.JForget 23:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the classic "another article about a similar topic does not exist, so neither should this one" argument. The two cases you mention should have articles, but the fact that no one has written them yet does not reflect on the notability of this topic. A thing has or lacks notability based on the attention it receives from people and the importance they attach to it. If some non-celebrity robs a convenience store and the media decides to make that front page national news, then it should have an article; if a celebrity robs somebody and the world doesn't care and nobody reports it, then it does not warrant such treatment. Whether it's a robbery or whatever is irrelevant for the purposes of this argument. Everyking 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's probably little question that some amount of content about this incident belongs in Wikipedia, right? There'll be something in here about this this week, there'll probably still be something here in a couple years. The details remain to be seen, of course- which content, how much, what article does it belong in- that sort of thing. I submit that AFD is a poor venue for such discussions, and this stuff should be worked out on the talk page instead. This is why I commented above that the AFD is premature, in my view. Friday (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I think to say otherwise is a little naive about the world. The content, as Friday says, is subject to discussion. DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a news item of trivial social importance. Only the "celebrity" element lifts it out of a one-paragraph article in the local paper. MarkBul 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been a lot of news coverage on this (and I'm sure there will be more in the future). The media seems to be in love with OJ. --RucasHost 01:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a news site. This story should absolutely be featured on his own wikipedia page, but notability has not yet been established enough to warrant its own article. Its possible this article will be necessary at some point, but not yet.Slapshot01j 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just saying no, please state your reason. Chris! my talk 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge: Per WP:NOT#NEWS Chris! my talk 02:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge with Simpson's own article. This hardly warrants it's own article. Do these "Celebrity does something stupid" articles ever hold up? I usually see them merged onto the appropriate articles (i.e Michael Richards' Laugh Factory incident is mentioned on his article, the laugh Factory's, and a certain South Park episode's). This case is only notable because it involves O.J. Therefore, the appropriate article for this is O.J.'s. In fact, having just checked, a good chunk of this is already on O.J.'s article. This article is superfluous. EDIT- From WP:NOT#NEWS- The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. Also- Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews.Onikage725 02:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tabloid rubbish is stuff that is only covered by papers like the National Enquirer, Star, etc. This story is getting major air time from CNN, MSNBC and others. These are America's major news outlets. They are not tabloid rubbish. Also, much of the facts surrounding many things are not fully known. Take, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Big Bang. Many of the facts surrounding these are not known, yet they are important Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That doesn't address the fact that this is covered on OJ's article already. What is the sense in having this article when the info is already covered? Onikage725 13:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the fact that this article may well be the size of OJ's main article soon, and we should then make this seperate? The same the murders article for OJ is seperate? • Lawrence Cohen 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly the same as the murder case. Onikage725 13:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, anyway, but we can't say what will happen. He's facing life in prison in this case; that is notable. Also, good thing I never called them the "OJ murders"! ;) I referred to murders, yes, because two people were murdered... • Lawrence Cohen 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I misread you. I removed that part of my response. All the same, the fact that OJ "might" go to jail for life (and I might as well cite the whole "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" thing, cuz if I don't someone else will) does not make this case notable beyond OJ himself. Hence why O. J. Simpson#Las Vegas theft allegations is entirely appropriate. That section could be expanded a bit, but the only key difference between that and the article is the "Timeline" and "People involved lists. And last I checked, lists were discouraged on Wikipedia. I don't dispute that this info should be represented, but noone has said how this article satisifes the requirements for the article beyond the section already on OJ's page. The vast majority of people with articles who go to jail have this written on their page, not a whole new article on the crime itself. Only especially notable cases do, and I fail to see how OJ holding some guys up for sports memorabilia ranks with something like, say, the Zodiac killings or OJ's own trial for murder. Onikage725 14:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the lack of an article on OJ's civil trial. That case was heavily talked about, though not to the degree of the murder case. The verdict was against him. Fred Goldman still pursues damages related to that ruling (even involing this case we're discussing now). Yet this is not considered notable enough for its own article. It is outlined in OJ's article. Onikage725 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sessh, you really think that OJ shaking down some guys for sports memorabilia compares to the double-homicide case? If everything that the news media sensationalized got its own article, then we would have to write articles devoted to Paris Hilton's legal problems and Britney Spears' failed marriage to K-Fed, erratic behavior, and custody issues. These all receive much media coverage, yet they are represented within the articles on the persons involved. Without looking, what's the name of the people OJ held up? Most people neither know nor care, and plenty of newscasts I've seen haven't even mentioned. The only reason this is getting coverage beyond a spot on the 11 o'clock news is because OJ is involved and the media loves a celebrity scandal. Onikage725 02:24, 21 September 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/O._J._Simpson_Las_Vegas_robbery_case&oldid=1140219950"