Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 speedy keep. twenty six keep comments and only one delete apart from the nominator is a WP:Snowball clause imo - and also uncontroversial enough for a non admin close also WP:NAC - feel free to revert me if you object , no objections - there is a degree of support for a rename , discussion for that can and should continue on the article talkpage - Youreallycan 18:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Luka Magnotta

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Luka Magnotta (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)

Previously deleted twice (1, 2) by AfD. This article adds nothing to the subject's twice agreed lack of notability. Much of the article covers an event (which is likely to be notable) for which he is only a suspect. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. ShipFan (Talk) 14:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be counter to BLP policy, which says to be careful when reporting allegations of criminality when the suspect hasn't been convicted. If you remove that material, there's little of note left. And he's not notable for who he's allegedly dating. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's now on Interpol's Most Wanted list and also on the front page of every newspaper in Canada as well as the subject of articles published in Australia (the Australian), the UK (Guardian) and BBC News, the US (CBS News), France etc. I'm afraid he's now definitely notable. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See WP:CRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Closing admin please note. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fugitive, per Vale. Acebulf (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per WP:BIO1E. The guy is notable only through the crime he allegedly committed, article should be about that, not him. As for a name for the event, I don't know exactly what to use at the moment (since victim's name is unknown, so we can't say "murder of X", and "mailing body parts to political parties in Canada" is not appropriate either), so the rename may have to wait.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vale. This guy is all over the news and thanks to the gruesome nature of the murder as well as what looks to be the video of the murder scene being posted online, he has notability. Normally I'm the "we can't predict notability" type of crystal baller, but to say that this guy won't continue to be notable or that this murder isn't notable enough now and/or won't be (covering the bases here, I know that you didn't state that last part) is a bit premature to state. I do, however, recommend renaming it and using Magnotta as a redirect once we have the identity of the victim. Since we don't have that at this point in time, the article for Magnotta should remain.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, whatever notability Mr. Magnotta lacked when his article was deleted is there now. Unfortunately, for such a unique and gruesome case, public interest will be high. I would however suggest 1. renaming the article in some way (as per 137.122.49.102's suggestion) and 2. protecting the page. Paris1127 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rename) - the previous deletions were when he was just a model/porn star. He's now the lead suspect in a major crime investigation which has attracted international news coverage. However, I agree with the nominator that it's really the event that's notable here, not the suspect, so this article should be renamed and rewritten to focus on the crime, per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename at least for now as per previous comments. Suggested titles: "Montreal-Ottawa Body Parts Case", "Montreal dismemberment case", etc. If this guy Magnotta is caught, tried and convicted, he may warrant his own article in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demetri1968 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps when the police publicly identify the victim the article can be named "Murder of _______." That's what Wiki did with the Greyhound beheading, it's "Murder of Tim McLean" not "Vince Weiguang Li." Paris1127 (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. It's funny you mention that. I remember, at the time, there was a lot of rigourous debate over whether or not to delete the "Tim McLean" article. The compromise was to rename it the "Murder of Tim McLean". Either way, I think it's important to keep an article related to Magnotta case considering the grisly nature and notability of the event.--Demetri1968 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems reasonable, tag this {{currentevent}} for now and wait until enough info is available (such as a victim's identity) to rename this later. A little hard to argue notability while this person's mug is still plastered across the newspapers as one of Canada's most wanted fugitives, whatever the allegations. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as per above. He's clearly notable now, but only in the context of the widespread coverage of the body parts murder Little Professor (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - can be renamed if needed, clearly an event that was living on multiple news sites around the world is notable. He may be only a suspect, but he is a well known suspect now. Since he is well known for only what he did, rename to the act itself could be a good idea. But just deleting it is imho not a good idea given media grown importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.221.18 (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but don't rename. We've got the porn, the kittens, Karla Homolka, the murder, the video, the mailings and now the manhunt that Interpol has now joined. This guy has become pretty infamous in his own right and I don't think we need to make up some name desperately trying cover everything when people will be searching for Luka Magnotta. AniMate 17:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: we can not add the kitten and homolka shit cuz it is not likely to be proven that he perpetrated the animal abuse, and the rumors about homolka are just that, and not suitable for inclusion. imo the only thing this guy is notable for (as far as wikipedia is concerned) is the murder of Lin Jun. -badmachine 15:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, what AniMate said. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW keep and rename per above, WP:BLP1E, and WP:CRIME. His name should be in the article as the suspect, but the article should be about the crime, not about him. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, story is getting international media coverage and is likely to continue. Even without the international media coverage, this is a significant and unusual crime in Canada.Michael5046 (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is often the case, I believe the problem here lies in confusing what belongs in an encyclopedia with what belongs in a newspaper. At this time, this is merely a WP:BLP1E about a person who has been accused, but not yet convicted, of a crime — thus presenting extremely serious privacy issues around a person who is still entitled to the benefit of the doubt until such time as he's actually found guilty in a court of law (y'know, "innocent until proven guilty" and all that.) Further, he's not notable for his porn activities; while the media coverage certainly played up the "gay porn star" angle, he was never in any sense a star — merely a guy who posed for a few photo shoots but never achieved anything that would make a porn actor notable enough to be considered a porn "star" for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Nor is he notable for allegedly dating Karla Homolka, as notability is not inherited. Taking all of that into consideration, we're left with the simple fact that at the present time, an article about him is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, because the only genuine claim of notability is that he's been accused of a crime that he has not yet been found guilty of — and anybody who actually needs information about the case can get it in the media, so he doesn't yet require coverage here unless our goal is lurid prurience for the sake of lurid prurience (which it most certainly ain't). Delete until such time as he's actually convicted of something that would make him a topic of permanent, lasting interest rather than just a temporary "fifteen minutes of fame" blip. Our job here is to filter what people will still need to know in ten or twenty or two hundred years from now, not to necessarily document every last scrap of media sensationalism that people might want to know about in the moment — until he's actually been convicted of a crime, he belongs on WikiNews, not WikiPEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So Jack the Ripper doesn't warrant an article, since he was never caught and the case was 100 years ago? Or perhaps are the articles on Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy just news events? I think it's clear that, with the mailing of the packages to parliament, and with the continuing search for the suspect, this case is more than just a one-off news event. Biographically speaking, this man is an evil genius, and his biography fits the profile of continued hints at notability over time, and it seems to many that he has now achieved that status. Granted, lots of murders happen every day. In this case, it's not just a case of an ordinary murder but one that raises vexing psychological and philosophical questions, and also calls into question Canada's lack of timely police response (the murder likely happened two weeks ago and the video of the murder had been online, but ignored by authorities, until the mailing of the packages). In any case, with this being a "current event" article, it should be kept for the meantime to see what direction the story continues to play out in.69.15.219.71 (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False comparison. Jack the Ripper, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy are all dead, and hence are not living people whose lives and reputations can be adversely affected if we get the story wrong. We have to be extremely careful in how we write about living people whose lives might be directly impacted by our content, which is one of the main reasons why our BLP policy explicitly recommends that we not write at all about alleged criminals whose culpability has not yet been proven. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing the issues of "notability" and "BLP". The article can be amended to make sure not to "assume" the suspect is guilty unless/until there has been a legal judgment. That said, there is clear prima facie evidence from multiple sources and angles over several years that this person's actions fit together in a pattern that warrants a "bio-graphical" (life-graph) article on Wikipedia. The real purpose of a biography is to summarize how a person became noted for what they are noted for today. In some cases, people may rise to "one event" instant fame and then their story flames out (like the Steve Bartman incident, flubbing a baseball game). Bartman will be forever remembered for "one event". His biography is of little or no consequence; his action on a single day for a single moment was. That's not the case with Luka Rocco Magnotta. We have issues with him being under the influence of other notable serial killers at a fairly young age; with him having a modeling and porn career; with his internet presence on blog issues such as "how to disappear" (which is already being shown to be important for the study of criminal elusive behavior...how he escaped and remained ignored, but not undetected, for two weeks, until people discovered human body parts in the mail in "high places". Then we have the kitten-killing incidents in 2010. All of this is a buildup that leads to the "breakthrough" story this week, and one which will continue since the killer:
A. Did not commit suicide, thus ending the story;
B. Is missing and being searched for;
C. Indicated he intended to kill again;
and, perhaps most importantly,
D. Intended to use the filmed killings and e-mailing of body parts to make social points. We can already see how the Toronto police repeatedly ignored red-flag warning signs and refused to follow up when groups such as Change.org and Animal Rights activists pointed out that this was a likely potential future psychopathic killer. Like the movie "Catch Me If You Can," but upped to a level of obscene horror, this is more than just a story of someone committing crimes: it is someone flaunting society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.219.71 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're basing your argument here on exactly the set of logical fallacies that I'm talking about. Namely, you start out by suggesting that The article can be amended to make sure not to "assume" the suspect is guilty unless/until there has been a legal judgment, and then immediately proceed to base the entire rest of your argument on the assumption that the suspect is guilty.
At any rate, WP:BLP is not subordinate to notability — the two documents must be read in tandem, not pitted against each other in a battle of policy wrestling. I'm not confusing BLP with notability at all; an article is not entitled to meet one of them while flouting the other, but in fact is not generally permitted to exist at all if it doesn't simultaneously satisfy both of them. And, in fact, BLP is a binding policy while notability is merely a guideline, which means that on the rare occasion when they actually are in irreconcilable conflict with each other, then BLP is the one that takes precedence — an article that passes our "notability" rules is still not allowed to exist if it cannot be written without violating our BLP rules.
Again, I never said that Magnotta should never have an article on Wikipedia. But until his guilt has actually been evidentially proven to the satisfaction of a judge and jury, the time when he should have an article is not today — because it's not our place to prejudge the case. Unlikely though it may already seem, as long as the possibility even still exists that he's actually not guilty of the murder, it's a BLP violation for us to have an article about him at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comment The event is notable, not the person. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notoriety is not notability. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename - Alison ❤ 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to heavy mainstream media coverage in Canada and some internationally. He's gotten so many headlines at this point, alas, that notability has been established. Agree that the article would have to be written with emphasis on the fact that the many (many) allegations being made about him are just that, allegations (at the moment).OttawaAC (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many above, and keep at current title. The story is about Magnotta far more than it is the murder. And given his past history, this is more than a simple BLP1E. Resolute 00:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , a big gigantic story with many angles and growing-Masterknighted (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all of the keep comments, see WP:CRIME, "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Closing admin please note. The article should be recast to focus on the crime, not an alleged perpetrator who is otherwise not notable. ShipFan (Talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In your opinion, which clearly has virtually no support. And I assure you, I did give serious consideration based on the provisions of WP:CRIME. This story has gone long past that point, however. Resolute 01:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should delete the page on Osama bin Laden by these same criteria... he was still alive when the page was written, the text acknowledges in some manner that he was accused of a crime but he has yet to get his day in court to answer that allegation (and never will, count on the US for that.) 66.102.83.61 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of the phrase biographies of living persons are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of the phrase "he was still alive when the page was written" did you happen to miss? 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "He was still alive when the page was written" isn't how BLP works. He's not alive today, therefore it's not applicable. And you might want to drop the attitude — considering that I've been editing here since 2003 and an administrator since 2004, and was more intimately involved in the conversations that led to the development of Wikipedia policy as it currently stands than almost anybody else who's still around today, I'm not the guy with whom you want to pull an "I know better than you do" snark fit. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, remember WP:CIVIL. As far as the notability concerns over Magnotta's individual notability, we do have a name for the victim now: Lin Jun. I say that for right here and now, we rename this "Murder of Lin Jun", with everyone that's interested working on creating an article for Magnotta in AfC or in someone's userspace. Right now I do have to say that most of the coverage he's gotten has been under the banner of the murder, but he does have some claim to notability. We just don't have enough right now that focuses on him aside from the murders. It's out there, we just have to find it. It's just going to take a while to find coverage that isn't predominantly focused on the murder, but I do think that it's possible for him to pass notability guidelines. We just have to compromise for right now and work on Magnotta's individual article off the mainspace.06:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Bearcat, comments such as "I'm important" are not productive to this discussion. And many of the Wikipedia policy decisions continue to be modified. Actually, given that this is an "open-source" project, I find your hyper-fear of violating BGP guidelines quite off. As someone pointed out, Osama Bin Laden was alive when his article existed for years and years, just because he didn't get a trial didn't mean he wasn't notable. BLP does not trump notability.69.15.219.71 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming to be "important". I'm merely claiming to be knowledgeable enough about Wikipedia's policies and procedures that the user's "I'm the real expert on BLP and you're an idiot" tone was unwarranted, which is far from being the same thing. For the record, the BLP policy as it stands now did not exist in Wikipedia's earlier days, when Osama bin Laden was first written about; it was developed over time, due to ongoing problems with people adding inaccurate and privacy-invading content to our articles. Thus, an article being created now has to meet a much stricter set of standards than an article that was created in 2003 did. And additionally, bin Laden is not a person whose criminal guilt is unproven just because he never went into the court system, nor was he notable only for a single crime whose details were still unfolding as the article was being written — he was responsible for several criminal actions, all of which were already in the past by the time his article was created, and had quite openly admitted his responsibility in his own words. Which is, consequently, a very different thing than having an article about a person whose crime just took place a few days ago, and whose guilt has not yet been either proven or admitted. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It came to my attention moments ago that in addition to all the prior deleted creations of this article at the mainspace title, there was also a declined AFC submission about him from 2011, which was an entirely unsourced BLP attack page that focused on the Homolka rumours and the cat videos, and which has for obvious reasons itself garnered new vandalism and POV commentary over the last two days. Just so that it's on the record, I've deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Luka Magnotta, in accordance with AFC policy that allows the deletion of sensitive material (BLPs, vandalized pages, etc.) from AFC's archives. That is independent of this discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luka_Magnotta_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138037944"