Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrus Belt

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 delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Belt

[edit]
Cyrus Belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is tragic and horrible, but not a good encyclopedia entry. It's not likely to ever be anything other than of local interest, nor likely of interest beyond a few months from now. Not every murder victim needs an article in WP. It might be appropriate over at Wikinews, though. eaolson (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment shows that you really don't understand what happened, so I don't think you have a right to say anything. This is on the news everywhere in Hawaii, and there is a memorial in real life, although this isn't meant as a memorial. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am being realistic. What will be the effects of the case down the road? Remember: WP:CRYSTAL .--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" The smirking "Right, thought so" comment is particularly inappropriate, and the idea that a 13 month old "cannot possibly" be notable "although the murderer might" is odd. We don't have a "you must be this tall to go on this ride" policy on Wikipedia. Eaolson and Shawls may be correct, in that we can't place every murder on Wikipedia. It's possible that, as with "Megan's Law" and the "Amber Alert", this tragedy would lead to a larger response to the problem of meth addiction . Mandsford (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not working under a deadline. If it turns out that this case sets a precedent or is the subject of significant secondary coverage (i.e, from sources other than news), it can always be created later, or restored at another title as appropriate. Until then, however, this is simply one of many sad stories that shows up in the news. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." The fact that something is all over the news the day after it happened speaks nothing to whether it should be in an encyclopedia. And please do not use edit summaries to call your fellow users "ignoramus". Finally, if the consensus is to keep this content in some form, I also strongly oppose moving to the name of the killer; that title (and the implication that the article would be a biography of him) would be a clear violation of WP:BLP1E, as the man who killed Belt is not known for anything outside of this one event. cab (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of the baby's notability sans-murder, murderer only notable for the case and I expect nothing big to happen Will (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Previously, I voted to keep, but I agree with Zetawoof that this article can always be recreated if this tragedy leads to further coverage. If the author was hoping to change opinions by changing the title and saying "I'm sorry", it worked. I imagine that press coverage in the future is more likely to describe this as "the Cyrus Belt case" rather than "the Matthew Higa case". Folks, get it out of your heads that crime victims have to have accomplished something else in their lives to have been notable. Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd still like to know exactly what policy this statement represents; it's clear that you're asserting it as an expression of some policy, and I'd like to know which one so as to be guided by it in the future. Or are you suggesting that victims of crime are the only category of people in the world who do not attain notability by their own actions alone? In that case, there must be a "victims of crime" policy that I have somehow overlooked. Your guidance would be welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do have articles on murderers, and on their victims, but there is a threshold of nobility for these cases, just as there are for any other biography. Serial killers, etc, or murder victims whose murder leads to notable events, laws, etc. This is a tragedy, but neither individual, or the crime committed is notable. Benea (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not impossible that this may become a notable incident in the future (in which case I would encourage an article on the event rather than the victim), but it's not notable now. --jonny-mt 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Coverage is not sufficient to consider this child's murder of encyclopedic notability. Risker (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per bandwagon above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:51, 25 January 2008 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cyrus_Belt&oldid=1089932666"