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 and rename.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Kluk

[edit]

Prodded with a reason "Being a victim does not make one notable.". Prod removed by creator with argument "This is an ongoing case and it is not yet established whether she was murdered in the church or not, just that her body was found there; irrelevant - this is a notable case receiving heavy media coverage, much of which focuses on the victim herself." I still claim this person is not notable; Wikipedia is not a memorial. PS. Update - I also agree with renaming and refocusing the article on the crime, not the person._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a victim does not automatically make one non-notable either. I find numerous articles about her specifically in The Scotsman[1], The Scottish Christian[2], the BBC, et al. 282 Google News hits (and those expire after a month or so). 27,500 Ghits on her name alone, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Many of the articles mentioned earlier contain detailed biographical information about her. She has wide name recognition and is a significant individual in an extremely controversial trial and a major news story. Since she's been dead for more than three days, it isn't a stretch to say that she's received significant long-term notice, and is therefore notable. --Charlene 20:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Rename and merge(edited to add) It should be renamed Angelika Kluk murder case since it appears to be notorious enough to justify an article, similar to Lindbergh kidnapping. or it could be kept with the present title like Laci Peterson. The stub article should be easy to merge. On review, there have now been 24 stories on BBC alone during the 5 week trial, and a sheriff, a priest, and a businessman have been questioned about their relationships, if any, with the deceased, while a handyman is on trial for it. For one thing, Wikipedia is not a memorial site, to tell the sad story of everyone who is murdered. For another, any violent crime in a fairly low-crime country gets widespread newsmedia coverage through the trial, but Wikipedia is not a newsmagazine. WP:N Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Third, per the essay WP:NOTNEWS, some Wikipedians distinguish between what is newsworthy and what is encyclopedic. Only those crimes which get more than immediate news coverage need articles. Edison 19:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent arguments of Edison and nom. Matter of fact, I think Charlene makes a good argument too, but every murder is tragic and any murder victim will get news coverage. This article strays too close to what Wikipedia is not - it's more appropriate for Wikinews. Plus, there's not much content here and we can always recreate if more encyclopedic information emerges.--Kubigula (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this. I'm not sure we should keep it, but it is a really BIG news story in Scotland. It isn't just a typical murder, it happened in a church, there's a high-profile trial, and the involvement of a local parish priest. There is multiple independent media coverage - not just a story on a wire but TV and major newspapers have followed it. I'm going to list this on Wikiprohect Scotland - so give some of those folks a few days to look it over. Myself, abstain.--Doc^g 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus and Edison. Yes, there's lots of news coverage, but Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. And the coverage really is just crime and court reporting. I wasn't able to find much in the way of "big picture" commentary, or broader conclusions that were being drawn here: no "Angelika's law", no moral panic. Ms Kluk's death was and is big news, but that's all it is, and it belongs on Wikinews because news does not belong in an encyclopedia until it gets turned into something more that just random noise. If, when the trial is over, the events generate published commentary and analysis, then we can create an article. For now, we can't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not asking for this to be kept. But consider that it isn't just a murder. It has been front-page news for several weeks - and is again today. It initially raised questions of the openness of RC churches offering hospitality to potentially dangerous vagrants. Then it emerged that the priest had been having a relationship with her. Then Donald Findlay QC, defending the vagrant, suggested (I think) that the priest had motive. Now apparently a Glasgow sheriff was giving her 'golfing tuition'. There are forensic evidence issues too. Here are the headlines from the Scotsman alone [3]. The BBC has run 24 stories so far, and the trial goes on [4] --Doc^g 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but god bless her and her family.--Vintagekits 10:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. If she really is a significant individual in an extremely controversial trial, as Charlene says, and this is documented in the article, I may change my mind. Currently the article says nothing that would distinguish her from hundreds of other (alleged) rape and murder victims. --Aleph-4 12:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shug, yes well, quite. I could expand the article and provide impeccable sourcing. But I'm not sure I want to, and I'm not sure we'd want to keep it even if I did. But if you check the links I provided above you will see she is/was a significant individual in an [extremely?] controversial trial--Doc^g 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you are say Doc, I feel the same way meself. Maybe we should invoke "wiki is not a crystalball" and lets see about this next month after the dust settles.--Vintagekits 13:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK delete without prejudice to recreation in a month or more if anyone wants. If recreated later, we can consider it again, it certainly should NOT be speedied.--Doc^g 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - 100%.--Vintagekits 13:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a famous case and will continue to be for some time Paul210 13:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits 16:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC) after looking at the rest of the discussion I would also be happy with a rename solution.--Vintagekits 13:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the case has caused some scandal, particularly as it involves a sexually active priest who took her in. --MacRusgail 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC) p.s. My vote now goes to rename, on the basis of "... trial" or "... murder"[reply]

The fact is that Angelika Kluk is not notable except for this incident. We don't have enough information to write a biography on her, and even if we did, would it be encyclopedic. Perhaps the murder, scandal, trial and associated events are encyclopedic - although it is difficult to say whether they are just today's NEWS or will be referred to in a few months at all. However, even if the murder and trial are encyclopedic - they and not she should be the subject of the article. Delete this. If someone wants to create an article Angela Kluk murder, they can do so later. My point is that someone may at some point write a chapter in a book about the murder - but no-one will ever publish a biography of the victim herself. The incident made the front pages of the Newspapers for weeks - but no one would have thought to write her up in the obituaries.--Doc^g 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we should consider merging this into an article about the case itself, which may be notable (like Virginia Tech is notable, but most of the victims are not).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This case has all the makings of a Law and Order or CSI episode, with an attractive young woman who has allegedly been involved with several important men over 60 years of age and who got murdered brutally by someone. A titillating book might well be written about it or a movie could be made based on it. There is no barrier to re-creating the story if it proves as significant as other notorious murder cases, but it should be about the murder rather than the individual, just as we have Lindbergh kidnapping \and no article on the victim, Charles A. Lindbergh, jr. Looking at the stories, they keep restating about 90% the same facts, then adding one more bit of testimony, as the trial progresses slowly. I just do not see that as a real-time crime story of a crude crime it has shown itself to be encyclopedic yet. Edison 17:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ RenameThere is no question whatever that the murder trial is notable, even if the poor woman's life was not. However, the article itself fails to indicate why this might be true (indeed if 20% of the effort put into this debate had been put into the article ....). The conclusion I draw is that in its present form the article fails 'to assert the significance of the subject' and should go. On the other hand if it was moved to Angela Kluk murder and Edison and Doc G simply cut and paste some of their comments and added a reference or two I'd probably change my mind. (I'm having an indecisive day). Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Murder trial of Angelika Kluk or something similar. This is definitely a noteable topic, but the focus of the noteworthyness is the court case, not the victim. Sorry, but it is usually true of crime victims... --Mais oui! 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Mais oui!. Very notable trial. Maccoinnich 18:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, if rename is the consensus, fine. But not 'trial'. The trial is only notable because of the murder Angelika Kluk murder would probably be better. --Doc^g 18:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, funnily enough, I had just been thinking exactly the same thing myself. --Mais oui! 18:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my mind, as noted above, after looking at the wealth of material at the BBC [5]. Most murder trials do not have so much lurid material that they have to go on over 5 weeks. A sheriff said he sat with her for 2 minutes, after giving her a golf lesson, then at the trial a security video shows it was 45 minutes [6]. A priest said he had a "sexual relationship" with her, then said it did not involve intercourse [7]. The priest said he did not know about the trapdoor where the body was concealed, but testimony said he did. [8] She had a "married lover" whose wife was angry. [9]. Clearly a major story in the UK (27,000 Google hits) over an extended period, with lots of material to write an interesting article from. Edison 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable victim with lots of media attention --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment. This case generated at lot of interest at the time that it arose. I am not sure whether legal proceedings have been completed, but when they are, the article should be converted to a general one of the murder case, (being moved i.e. renamed) appropriately. Peterkingiron 23:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename probably Angela Kluk Murder. Sweeping scandal like this under the rug is what got the Catholic Church is such deep financial trouble, at least in English speaking countries. I suspect that this has gone past a news story, and is now history, maybe evolving historyPustelnik 15:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the name Angelika Kluk is going to appear in many contexts as a short hand for the issues the case illustrates. It makes sense to allready have a page which people who don't recognise it can find. This is exactly the benefit of wikipedia over a paper encyclopedia Jeniswitch 19:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That can be sorted by a redirect.--Doc^ga pox on the boxes 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the trial is still going on. The prosecution case has just been completed. Now comes the defense case. Edison 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has previously been noted, this is a high profile case and I would argue that the Wikipedia entry should be named for the case, rather than the individual. However, I do not think the entry should be written until after the case is closed as we do not yet know what will come out of it and what the full significance and impact will be. Few murder trials are covered in such detail - indeed, few crimes in Anderston are covered at all. --JamesTheNumberless 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also agree with renaming the article after the case. The murder case is notable, the victim herself is not --JamesTheNumberless 16:18, 2 May 2007 (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.