Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (4th 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 SPEEDY KEEP. Nominator does not even propose that the article should be deleted, therefore this is the wrong place. For renaming requests, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. JIP | Talk 10:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Magnotta

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

Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (3rd nomination) result appears to have been keep with "rename" but this was not respected. Page was kept, but not renamed. Seeking enforcement of previous AFD consensus, or a compromise split of article to Murder of Lin Jun. Regards, Stevertigo (t | c) 01:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The result of the AfD on June 1, 2012 was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus in that discussion was keep. The consensus in a subsequent talk page discussion to move the article to Murder of Lin Jun was closed with a result of not moved. Stevertigo has been attempting to continue these actions despite multiple consensus decisions against it. He has indicated in this comment that he feels justified in attempting to usurp prior consensus by relisting this in AfD. My comment in response is here. I find his actions are now bordering on disruptive, and the motivations seem POVish. Taroaldo (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taroaldo wrote: The result of the AfD on June 1, 2012 was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. - This is true, but note that Taroaldo in his entire comment fails to address the "rename" issue: It appears that most votes at the AFD stipulated a "rename" in their comments. I'm not making this up. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick perusal of that AfD shows that the majority of !votes were "keep" (not keep and rename), and that the result was speedy keep. Subsequent discussion in the talk page resulted in an even stronger consensus as more information about Magnotta had continued to come to light. Taroaldo (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just done a quick count of AFD 3, and it appears that there were 28 votes, with 14 explicitly stating "RENAME" in their comment. A couple explicitly stated "don't rename." Regards -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you seem intent on attempting to mislead other editors. There were seventeen explicit keep !votes (some citing SNOW), and only nine "explicit" keep and rename -- one of which !voted to rename the article Luka Rocco Magnotta. Subsequent discussion on the article's talk page reinforced the consensus to leave things as is. Pursuing such a blatant agenda and attempting to mislead editors should result in sanctions. Taroaldo (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per criterion 1: nominator does not make an argument for deletion, and splitting or renaming does not require an Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Im arguing that the previous AFD consensus should be enforced - and that those who reject the rename of the article have done an end-run around AFD process. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close as WP:POINT. The AfD from 2 weeks ago is about as relevant as the 2008 ones. Nom can't be arsed to as much as read the arguments directly above him. Skullers (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. We get that you don't like the title, and we get that you don't like how the requested move didn't go the way you wanted. But this is just a WP:POINT disruption. Reso lute 03:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to AGF. This is not a "disruption" for sake of making a POINT. This is to see that a recent (two weeks ago) AFD consensus ("rename") be enforced, and to inquire as to why said AFD was not enforced according to the consensus at that AFD. By my count, it appears that more than half voted to "rename," and yet that stipulation was not respected. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The A in AGF is "assume". Assumption is not necessary when faced with a demonstration of bad faith. Deliberately misusing AfD to try and overturn a consensus in a RM that you don't like is a bad faith action. Reso lute 03:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - and anyone who sends this to AfD again before the end of 2012 should be blocked for disruption. This is becoming absurd. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Total bullshit. Close AfD, keep article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"there is a degree of support for a rename , discussion for that can and should continue on the article talkpage" from 3rd AfD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - This guy, especially right now is quite notable, but even before the tragic crime I have seen him on TV and remember those kitten cruelty controversies, although I didn't know at the time that it was him. He is a rather interesting character and I don't see why in spite of all the recent spark of notability that he shouldn't be properly documented on Wikipedia.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The result of the move request was: not moved, with no opinion on whether the article can or should be split. The citations in reliable sources prior to the murder indicate that this article is about Magnotta more broadly than his association with the murder." from the closed move.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not rename. Biography is of a notable suspect charged with several high-profile acts that have received heavy news coverage within Canada. and quite a bit internationally for a while when Magnotta was in hiding. Perhaps there should be a limit on repeated AfD noms for the same article within a short timeframe like this, it seems like an 'abuse of process' in my eyes.OttawaAC (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. It's a serious subject. Whatever happened, it was a murder, and all murders are publicly notable even if not for an encyclopedia. There are a number of RS saying the case was sensationalized or the media hasn't focused enough on the victim (Huffington Post, Winnipeg newspaper). Psalm84 (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The suspect is more or less a notable celebrity. I don't mean to disrespect the victim or his family, but Lin Jun was a nobody.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't a nobody. Even if WP doesn't include most murders, it also doesn't ignore the reality that all murders are important and publicly notable (should always be investigated/prosecuted) and will get local news coverage. Calling the article "Murder of Lin Jun" only makes it about the crime, which is what the media coverage is mostly about. Without the crime, there would be no coverage of Magnotta. Psalm84 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Magnotta had notoriety before the murder, albeit not international.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did have international notoriety, gave UK interviews. Separate articles for Luka Magnotta and Murder of Lin Jun could both be justified IMO at this point. Magnotta was getting international press coverage and giving interviews for the animal abuse videos well before the murder case. Also, getting notoriety for rumours about dating Karla Homolka when she was released from prison. He's also being investigated for possible connections to homicides around the US and elsewhere due to his constant travelling. He warrants a biography article. The Murder of Lin Jun, due to the exceptionally bizarre circumstances and heavy press coverage, warrants a separate article as well, IMO, since it will be discussed and remembered for years. Also, the posting of the Lin Jun video in Canada will probably set some legal precedents here, still lots of fallout from the murder.OttawaAC (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Community consensus has demonstrated, overwhelmingly, that this should be kept. With over 100+ instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties, this should be obvious. The nominator shows a gross lack of understanding the AFD process, this is not the correct forum for renaming articles. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 04:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was my impression that a majority had voted in favor of a rename, but on second look it appears that the split was about even at 14 rename to 13 don't rename. Hence it was not improper to leave the discussion of a rename to the article talk page. I withdraw my suggestion for a review and enforcement of the previous AFD. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This AFD is irrelevant and not related to the issue of whether the article should be renamed "Murder of Lin Jun" as some users have suggested. The case easily meets WP:GNG, so tagging the article for deletion at this late stage looks nonsensical. Please consider withdrawing the nomination--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Maractus (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, Do not rename. No need to delete the article. Luka Magnotta is notable because of a chain of alleged events that he was linked to and was brought to the media's attention in the past several years. No need to rename the article. Luka Magnotta is notable for more reasons then being linked to the murder of Jun Lin. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rename The murder of Lin Jun is notable but WP:BLP1E. The fabricated nonsense about an affair with Karla Homolka is not, nor is most of the other attention whoring that's found its way onto this page. If notability exists for one event only, the article should be named for the event, not for a suspect who has neither been charged nor tried for the WP:BLPCRIME. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Despite my feelings on whatever the article should be named, this is not what AfD is for. I'd opened up a rename debate on the article talk page, which was closed with the consensus that it shouldn't be renamed. While most of the talk on the previous AfD was to rename, that doesn't mean that it is a mandate that has to be followed. Disputes over article titles is more something that should be brought up on the administrator board, which it has been. If the previous dispute was closed and you feel that you need to bring this up to the admins again because it should be moved, make another thread on the admin board. I'm honestly not sure if I think the page needs to be renamed or if the murder should be split into another article, but I don't think this needs to go up for AfD again and this is stuff that needs to be kept on the talk page. Yes it's a very messy debate process so far and there's a lot of opposing opinions, but the fact remains that this is not what AfD is for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - (1) reopening a debate on talk would be unconstructive as a recent consensus has already been reached; (2) the statement that "most of the talk on the previous AfD was to rename" is incorrect, as I have outlined above. Taroaldo (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point in saying that is that even if there were a lot of people saying that the article should be renamed, that doesn't automatically mean that the article should be renamed. I'm pretty much agreeing with you. The last AfD wasn't closed as "rename" and even if it had been, that doesn't automatically mean that the article should necessarily be renamed. That's what the discussion on the talk page was for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and do not rename, this AfD starts by a false assumption by the nominator, the results of the previous discussion was not Keep and rename but only Keep with an invite to discuss an eventual renaming in the talk page of the article. There was a discussion and the result was a clear majority for keeping this name. AfD is not the place to discuss this result. Cavarrone (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and allow spinout article: Each attempt to create a separate article on the notable crime is reverted. Allow creation of an article on the notable event, and let this article then stand on its merits. 8nate (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Previous AfD closed as Keep, with note "there is a degree of support for a rename , discussion for that can and should continue on the article talkpage". That discussion happened, and was closed as "not moved". It seems an abuse of process to bring this back again so soon. PamD 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and do not rename same as Cavarrone Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Articles for Deletion is not the place for article renaming requests. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves. JIP | Talk 10:03, 17 June 2012 (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.