Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Levin

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, as the references provided in the references section and the external links section are sufficient to establish a presumption of notability for this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and there is insufficient evidence of a consensus to override this presumption. John254 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Levin

Jennifer Levin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is part of a multiple nomination, following discussion of a number of pages at AN/I. Per Wikipedia is not a memorial, a page on this subject should be about the case and not the victim. However, tragic as the case may have been for those connected to it, it is not necessarily clear that the case is notable enough (among the 500+ murders in New York City every year) to warrant its own article.

This is not a "typical" AfD; a few points:

1. There has already been a very lengthy discussion of these articles (archived - please don't modify it) which I'd urge anyone commenting on these articles to read, as many of the potential "keep" and "delete" arguments have already been raised there;
2. Although this is one of a multiple nomination, could I request that anyone voting/commenting consider each of these cases on its own merits and not vote "keep all"/"delete all" — while these are similar articles, they are about very different cases, some of which may well be more notable than others. The articles are all being nominated separately and not as a single bulk-nom for this reason;
3. I know you all know it, but just a reminder that AfD is about the validity of the topic and not about problems with the writing style of the articles; some of these articles are very poorly written, but vote on whether the article is worth keeping & cleaning up, not on its current stylistic problems;
4. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL does not prohibit the writing of articles about victims per se. WP:BIO does, however, demand that article subjects be the subject of widespread coverage over time in the media.

And please try to keep this discussion WP:CIVIL whichever result you lean towards. As you can see from the AN/I discussion, the debate got a little heated — remember this is a discussion of the content of, not the contributors to, the article. Also, MurderWatcher1 (talk · contribs) has stated that he's planning to contact the family of at least one of the subjects of these articles, so — while it shouldn't affect your decision — bear in mind when discussing that persons directly affected by this article may well be reading it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but move to Jennifer Levin manslaughter case, with Robert Chambers (killer) merged into it. As noted in the other AFD the nom seems unaware of the obvious notability (books and a TV movie about the case). If that does not pass the "over time" test, I'm not sure what will (there are lead times for publishing and production). --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Since this seems to be keep or delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A notable murder case that was highlighted in the media for years. The New York Times archive lists 233 separate articles alone covering the 20+ years since her sensational murder, which would seem to clearly distinguish this particular victim from your ordinary run-of-the-mill murder case. WP:NOT is the most abused and deliberately misinterpreted element of official policy, but what WP:NOT#MEMORIAL actually says is that "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives." and no rational person can claim that this article is a memorial. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is clearly satisfied. Alansohn 05:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge killer and victim articles to an article about the crime. DCEdwards1966 14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge killer and victim articles to "The Preppie Murder Case." The victim and killer were non-notable before the crime. The crime was quite well covered and continues to be notable decades later. Edison 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with article about the murderer without prejudice for the result being considered for deletion. The work User:MurderWatcher1 has put into this is noted and appreciated by me and others. Nevertheless, this article is just about a woman who was murdered - a statistic, if you like. The world/country/state was unaware that she lived in the first place; her death seems to have made temporary headlines and then faded from view; the fate of her killer is of but passing interest; the world has moved on without her. Shocking, harsh judgement from me, and I know I sound heartless. But Wikipedia is not a memorial. For transparency, iridescent and I have discussed this in the past and directly before I commented; I previously agreed with this AfD and spoke about it on the WP:ANI discussion which was started to try to avoid offending the author before this came to AfD. Some of this text appears elsewhere; this is because it applies elsewhere too and this is convenient for me. No summary judgement has been made. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (merge). JJL 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with a high emphasis on merge. Seems best suited in an article that encompasses both the people involved and the situation. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; merge if motivated. - Nunh-huh 17:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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.