Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Julie Berman

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. Seems to be a pretty strong consensus that this should be on wiki in some form or another, at the very least until a longer period has elapsed from the previous AfD nom. A pure keep seems more appropriate for now rather than a merge given the procedural concerns and the lack of clarity over into what article it would be merged. WP:NODEADLINE strikes me as applying here - nothing stopping it being reviewed again at a later date. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Julie Berman

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A sad event, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site WP:NOTOBITUARY. There is no lasting coverage in reliable sources, WP:LASTING. She was in the news, but only as a story, should be deleted according to WP:BLP1E. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since Berman's death marked a point in which trans rights became a big deal, this article should be kept. It might be in history books.JTZegers (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:JTZegers, no her death had no such influence. There is no mention of her in any RS after the initial reporting in Dec 2019-Feb 2020 MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MistyGraceWhite: How? JTZegers (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:JTZegers How? by checking google for any news that shows lasting coverage, that's how. There is no lasting coverage. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Nothing fundamentally wrong with the content, and the sourcing is respectable. At worst, this should be merged somewhere and fit into a broader topic, like trans bashing or Violence against LGBT people. (We have an article dedicated to the History of violence against LGBT people in the United States, but apparently not yet one for Canada, though it would be a wiki-notable topic [1][2][3][4].) XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:XOR'easter which source is reasonable enough that it provides LASTING coverage? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: CHECK GOOGLE! JTZegers (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to speedy keep on procedural grounds, since the prior AfD was closed barely 3 months ago. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. – ᕼᗩᑎᗪOTO (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge So I was the editor that did a large portion of the work to get it passed the last AFD; however, time has passed and it does not appear to have made lasting impact in the media. The larger problem is to find out where to merge it. Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people oder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_LGBT_history_in_Canada Affied (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD was closed in February. I think it's too soon to revisit, on procedural grounds. (Quoting Shelbystripes from that page, with emphasis added: I wouldn't be opposed to a 2nd AfD in a year or two.) Bringing the same article to AfD again so quickly is poor form. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A cherry-picked quote from one user in the last AFD is not a consensus and is not appropriate to use as an argument in this case. There has not been an article or even a mention in an RS about the murder or the victim in 3 months, it is hard to make an argument that this meets WP:Lasting. Affied (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lull in the news is to be expected; there's going to be an interval between somebody being arrested and a verdict, for example. As I said below, I think 3 months is simply too short to make a judgment about lasting-ness one way or the other, and it's barely half the minimum time between AfDs that Wikipedia editors generally seem to find reasonable. XOR'easter (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that is your opinion, can you point to any policies that back up what you are saying? Specifically "it's barely half the minimum time between AfDs that Wikipedia editors generally seem to find reasonable". Thanks in advance Affied (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of policy, but of how I've observed people acting over my ~3 years of hanging out at AfD. I don't think a rigid standard has ever been set in print for how soon is too soon, and in fact, trying to do so seems rather silly, given that different events will naturally tend to develop on different timescales. XOR'easter (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your main contention is that it has been too soon since the last AFD, yet you yourself admit this is just your opinion and based on only your personals experiences - how do you justify your vote on procedural concerns, if there is no established procedure? Affied (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:XOR'easterThere is nothing beyond news reports on her, if she was going to have a lasting impact there would have been something during the past 3 months. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three months is too short to tell whether there has been "lasting" influence or not, given that the legal proceedings have not yet even concluded. XOR'easter (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per last AFD being mere months ago, also it meets GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as the previous AfD closed such a short time ago and the nominator either didn't check the talk page or was unfamiliar with the policy. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also speedy keep on procedural grounds. You can't keep spamming the same articles with afds. Ford MF (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: As this is a clear case of abusive nomination in violation of WP:BEFORE. Last AFD is less than 3 months. Kaizenify (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - 3 months since last nom only. Spamming.BabbaQ (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2020 (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.