Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Kuhnhausen

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 delete. Sandstein 21:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Susan Kuhnhausen

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Susan Kuhnhausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E. A loose necktie (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this garbage. Wikipedia is not a news site. Trillfendi (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - I do not know if I am allowed to vote, since I made the article - I just wanted to have the opportunity to provide a reason why I think this is not a news article and that it should be allowed as a short (maybe shortened beyond what it is currently) encyclopedia entry. If I am speaking in the wrong place on this, please let me know and I can remove the "vote". This person should have an encyclopedia entry of at least minimal length because the event has inspired not just news articles, but discussion beyond that. If you search "Susan Kuhnhausen" on google, you get at least 16,400 results (as of today). Anyone who browses through the results will see not just news articles, but commentary, reflections, fictitious stories based on the events, discussions of popular murders, and blog posts related to the subject. By the amount of coverage the subject has received, I feel that it is WP:Notable and should have at least a minimal entry. Maybe the current entry is too long and could be shortened, but I think a record is merited. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Further, I would like to address the four criteria outlined under Wikipedia is not a newspaper:

(1): Original reporting. There is no original reporting in the article; it cites to other sources that have reported information.

(2): News reports. Newsworthy events DO NOT qualify for a Wiki article. This is NOT a merely newsworthy event, as it has received enduring popularity in social media as an interesting crime and has inspired a great deal of discussion beyond the original event.

(3): Who's who: Not sure how to respond - maybe it should be transformed from an article about the individual to an article about the event? Would appreciate commentary on this.

(4): A diary: Doesn't seem relevant as only the relevant event is mentioned.

Can I ask that people comment on this analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Move to "Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen" or something similar. I agree with Ikjbagl that Kuhnhausen's story is one of enduring popularity and is well-known to people interested in true crime. Looking at articles for other notable murder or attempted murder victims (Murder of Laci Peterson, Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Aruna Shanbaug case), the standard seems to be an article about the case or crime itself, with redirects from the name of the victim. --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion- I will move the page and add a redirect. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Query - Creator's argument on why this is beyond BLP1E is not without merit - however, do we treat this potential additional material (which would require secondary sources) as equivalent to AfD source-hunting (where sources just need to exist somewhere, not actually be in the article) or does this article actually need to be expanded beyond the base crime with this extra content before this argument would be legitimate? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
• Weak delete I came across this article in the AfD list, I see the creator tried to set it up as a biography however that doesn't seem to work here, this is more about a crime taking place and there is a lot of that. As a singular incident I don't see enough of a impact for an article here, I wouldn't pass per WP:BLPCRIME. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

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.