Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Elaine O'Hara

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. Michig (talk) 08:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Elaine O'Hara

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

Delete: murder case with no national or international implications or significance. One off article, created by editor with no other edits. Not every murder is notable regardless of tabloid headlines. Quis separabit? 06:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on continued coverage even as soon as this week in 2018. Clearly a case that has reached the level of where its continually covered by media. Good references in the article as well.BabbaQ (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG and, in particular, WP:LASTING. On the former, GNG is more than satisfied. On the latter, the case (and the defence's claims on the legal basis used to capture/use the mobile phone data) has already had a lasting effect. And could have further effect. Nationally. And potentially further afield. On the lasting effects already seen, the case led (directly and indirectly) to a review of the underlying legislation (the 2011 Act) and changes to how state agencies use the data captured under that act. On the lasting effects that may yet be seen (and have already been reported), the planned appeal claims are expected to be relevant to case law, precedent and the validity of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 itself. (And any other cases which have already or may in future rely on mobile phone evidence captured by the Gardaí). The WP:LASTING effects already seen (the review of the existing law and how agencies rely on that law), and the lasting effects potentially in the offing (the potential impact to the Act itself) are both well reported. Though they hadn't actually been represented in the article, I have since added it. Guliolopez (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:NCRIME. Long lasting and wide coverage. Also in British press - [1], and an American TV show - [2] - where this murder was the subject (which itself was covered - [3]). And of course very wide Irish coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Someone bothered to write a book about it - [4] (and there are quite a few book hits).Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above, meets criteria. Ongoing appeal from this case could have broad ramifications for policing in Ireland.GeneralBelly (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2018 (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.