Talk:Murder of Chanel Petro-Nixon/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Murder of Chanel Petro-Nixon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Create your own test page
Click this User:MurderWatcher1/Chanel Petro Nixon and you can have your very own test page to work on until the article is ready. pw 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- If its actually in process, I think we let pages get developed--I changedit to a prod--when the page is ready, remove the tag--you have about 4 days.DGG 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- sounds good to me pw 21:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Still working on this!--MurderWatcher1 21:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Further: The tag said I could remove it so I did.--MurderWatcher1 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Still working on this!--MurderWatcher1 19:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
See also section
I have trimmed this since we don't need a link farm here. this is not vandalism. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Poorly sourced material
I removed the material about a possible suspect since the sources are questionable and not appropriate here, ie self published. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Requested move
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was bastard verdict. It's correct that wikipedia has a bunch of contradictory precedents and no clear policy guidelines, so as no one really argued hard enough either way it's probably sensible to leave it here for now and a bunch of the related articles were moved anyway, there's no reason not to move this too [for now]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Chanel Petro-Nixon → Murder of Chanel Petro-Nixon — Notability is the event —Artichoke2020 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Survey
- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''or*'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
Discussion
- Any additional comments:
- The guideline I am following is Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). There is a subsection on article title that says:
| “ | In cases where the victim or the perpetrator of a crime does not meet the criteria for an individual article, but there exists sourced coverage of the crime itself sufficient to meet notability standards, the material should generally be presented in an article documenting the crime event and not the people involved. For example, a high profile crime would have an article entitled "Murder of Joe Bloggs", "Disappearance of Jane Doe", etc. | ” |
Similar moves
This is one of ten similar and similtaneous move proposals. Should we have a centralised discussion perhaps? Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I take the liberty of copying from Talk:Imette St. Guillen, one of the similar proposals:
Comment as far as I know there is really no clearly defined consensus for renaming pages of murder victims. Renaming has been brought up previously in regards to these specific articles, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive_7#Crime.2Fmurder victims and criminals. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
and
Just a note to everyone: Notability (criminal acts) isn't any kind of guideline, let alone a policy — it's a unilateral proposal by Fritzpoll. As ImmortalGoddezz rightly says, this debate has been - er - heated in the past; see Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore and the almighty amount of sound-and-fury here (the entries on Ramona Moore, Chanel Petro-Nixon and Justine Ezarik) for more on the matter. — iridescent 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This particular article has of course been once through AfD, which was closed as keep and then modified to no consensus on appeal through the deletion review process. It also rates a mention here in the admin noticeboard archives, and probably other places as well. Andrewa (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- As nominator, I have no objection to a centralized discussion, I just don't know where it would be. I'm confused about Notability (criminal acts). Should it be in Wikipedia space if it isn't a guideline? I'm not trying to mislead anyone, I just thought it was. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Also just wanted to point out this isn't an AfD, just a move. I have no problems with the articles. It just seems they're related to a particular event (in this case murders of a particular person), so it appeared logical to me to name them for that event. I was working on "Murder of Eve Carson" and couldn't see why that article should be named differently to these. Artichoke2020 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you take a very deep breath and then try to make sense of this, you'll see it got discussed to death last year. I personally agree that it's the event that's notable, not the victim (and I'm not in the least convinced that in this case even the event is notable); however, since the last time round set off such a flurry of hissy-fits and bad-faith accusations, I'm not sure changing them is worth the effort. — iridescent 21:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point... My intention wasn't to open up a can of worms. I still think the moves make sense, but I don't want to cause chaos... It is very confusing, though. Artichoke2020 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It does (and has) open up a can of worms. There is actually another discussion on whether these are notable (again) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event?. Honestly disregarding notability I think they would probably best be served by being renamed, if it can be managed. Would point out though that if the articles are renamed, and are generally notable, then if consensus is reached that 'Murder of XYZ' isn't inherently notable then you've got other problems. Also if we're moving people who are more notable for their murder than themselves Natalee Holloway would probably be a good candidate. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- (Though I see that's already being addressed at the articles FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway) --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't see the noticeboard discussion... Maybe it means I'm not only one confused. I think "Murder of..." is best, but any consistent naming scheme would be agreeable, or at least someone explaining why some articles are "Murder of... X" and others are just "Y". Artichoke2020 (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- (Though I see that's already being addressed at the articles FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway) --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- It does (and has) open up a can of worms. There is actually another discussion on whether these are notable (again) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Time to end the prohibition on biographies of people known for one event?. Honestly disregarding notability I think they would probably best be served by being renamed, if it can be managed. Would point out though that if the articles are renamed, and are generally notable, then if consensus is reached that 'Murder of XYZ' isn't inherently notable then you've got other problems. Also if we're moving people who are more notable for their murder than themselves Natalee Holloway would probably be a good candidate. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point... My intention wasn't to open up a can of worms. I still think the moves make sense, but I don't want to cause chaos... It is very confusing, though. Artichoke2020 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you take a very deep breath and then try to make sense of this, you'll see it got discussed to death last year. I personally agree that it's the event that's notable, not the victim (and I'm not in the least convinced that in this case even the event is notable); however, since the last time round set off such a flurry of hissy-fits and bad-faith accusations, I'm not sure changing them is worth the effort. — iridescent 21:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.