Talk:Murder of Stephen Oake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeMurder of Stephen Oake was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 2, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Murder of Stephen Oake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NuclearWarfare (talk message contribs count logs email) 19:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references should all be properly formatted per Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to format and place citations, and the lead should be a more comprehensive summary of the article. {{Cite news}} can help you with the former if you're not sure how to do that. That needs to be done before any more detailed review is done. I am going to close this review for now until that is worked out; please let me know when you finish that so I can tell you if it would be worth renominating it. NW (Talk) 19:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Bourgass redirects here...[edit]

We don't cover every murderer, only the genuinely notable ones. Is Kamel Bourgass a genuinely notable murder? Geo Swan (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you've slightly misunderstood Wikipedia policy here. You're possibly correct to suggest Bourgass isn't notable enough to have an article himself, but a redirect isn't classed as an article and thus the notability rules you're concerned with simply don't apply at all. Pretty much every murder case will have a murderer and a victim and we typically choose one or the other as the article title. We then typically also create a redirect of the name for the less notable party so people searching for that individual arrive at the relevant article concering the case. In other words, it's good practice to have created the redirect in question, it's the whole point of redirects really.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shakehandsman: You have this backwards. I did not mean to suggest Bourgass isn't notable enough for a standalone article. I suspect he is notable enough for a standalone article. If you know of reasons why he isn't notable -- that is what I was hoping you would offer. Geo Swan (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reason I created a redirect was becasue nothing existed under the name "Kamel Bourgass", neither as an article nor a redirect and at the very last a redirect was desperately needed. That was some six years ago and if you think a full article is justified then you're welcome to go ahead and create one. Alternatively, you may just want to expand the content in the current article, I don't have strong feelings either way.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan and Shakehandsman: I think it would be worth having separate biographical sections for both the victim and perpetrator of this murder. Then there would be space to cover additional information about the people involved, such as how Kamal Bourgass became an undocumented person, or his treatment after being imprisoned. Doing that would allow the Wikipedia community to assess if there is enough content to justify a separate article. It would also mean that the redirect could target a specific article section about Kamal Bourgass, rather than just redirect to the top of the article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]