Talk:Anu Singh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Anu Singh is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Murder or manslaughter?

The Joe Cinque article indicates this person was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. I'm not aware of any details of this case. If this fact is correct this article must be removed from the Australian murderers category. -- Longhair | Talk 20:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

  • Oppose - I don't think there should be a merger. I don't think it is fair to the victim, and I realise tht is merely a sentimental approach but ... Further - judging from newspaper reports, she will quite possibly have an ongoing public life and this article will continue to develop.--A Y Arktos\talk 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Where is a merger being suggested though? Rebecca 04:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
At the article for Joe Cinque. -- Longhair 04:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- though I'd be supportive of a merger of Joe Cinque with Joe Cinque's Consolation. - Longhair 06:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I would also support such a merger, and have proposed the same.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd rather not. While I'm not sure there's enough to say about Cinque for an article of his own, I'm uncomfortable merging him with the book because he was notable before the book was written - it isn't the reason he was notable. Rebecca 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • If he was notable beforehand, that isn't at all evident in the stub. While I am sure he was nice, seemingly successful for a 26 year old engineer and very much missed by his family, I haven't got the sense he was otherwise notable. I haven't read Garner's book, though it has been strongly recommended to me. Can you add a little to his stub to convey his notability before the book was written? If you mean he was notable because of the manner of his death and not just the book, I really don't think the victim was otherwise notable, the manslaughterer (is that a word?) was. I don't feel strongly though that he should not have his own stub and am happy to let the status quo stand.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I meant that he was notable as a notable murder victim. I'd certainly heard of him long before the book was written, which I still haven't read, and I wasn't in Canberra at the time. I realise that there may not be enough on him to warrant a bit of a stub, but it just seems a bit odd to me to be then merging the article with a later book written on him, when it isn't really that that brought the crime to public attention. Rebecca 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Victims of crime (Cinque wasn't murdered btw, Singh was found guilty of manslaughter) are sometimes notable (Victor Chang and John Newman are prime examples here). It's random members of the public that make high-profile news that makes these articles hard to expand upon. Richard Kelvin and Alan Barnes are other articles with similar problems where the victim's article comes to a halt, and suggestions of it being merged into the offenders article go nowhere. The problem I see is a matter of decency and respect and the like. Out of respect for the victim, editors decide not to merge articles which leaves them sitting idle for a long time with only trivial edits occuring. Respect issues aside (I'm sure nobody here is disrespecting of anyone), it's keeping these articles bare, and providing little hope for them ever to improve beyond a stub. I'm not strongly in favour of merging anything, but I do like to see articles expand to cover most areas of somebody's life. If that person is only notable for a brief moment of their life, it makes the rest of the article pretty damn boring if it ever expands at all. When kept, the victim's articles tend to duplicate content (see the histories of both Peter Falconio and Bradley John Murdoch). With the intent of writing an encyclopedia, I'd merge. -- Longhair 01:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different articles?

The merger discussion was a while back. The current state of affairs is that Anu Singh and Joe Cinque are separate articles and Joe Cinque's Consolation redirects to Joe Cinque. As best I can see, there are a bunch of notability cases:

  • Anu Singh is notable, she's been profiled a number of times and her life attracts moderate amounts of continuing media attention
  • Joe Cinque himself was definitely not notable before his death as far as I can see by WP:BIO
  • Joe Cinque himself is probably not notable after his death either. BIO only specificially excludes people involved in a relatively unimportant crime from notability and this was a fairly major crime: unusual circumstances, lots of media coverage, an entire non-fiction book devoted to it. But the material in his article would overlap all but entirely with Singh's.
  • Joe Cinque's Consolation is likely a notable book per WP:BK. It attracted a number of media articles, interviews and reviews, it won a Walkley Award for non-fiction and its author is a prominent writer in Australia. That is, there is a case for an article about the book itself, not only about the events that it chronicles.

I therefore suggest that there should be two articles:

  1. Anu Singh, covering the crime, the trial and her subsequent life if there continue to be sources for it
  2. Joe Cinque's Consolation, providing a short summary of the book and its critical response

Joe Cinque could redirect to one of the two, but I don't know about which one. 137.111.238.29 (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (preceding comments by me when not logged in, Thayvian (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Lots more info!

I got access to a lot of the Canberra Times coverage from 1997–1999 via Factiva, which has resulted in many more details of the case. If anyone has thoughts, let me know! Thayvian (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)