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. This debate took some sorting out before I could come to any kind of reasonable conclusion. There are valid arguments on both sides of the equation here, but the truth of the matter is that the arguments for deletion are both more numerous and more persuasive. Several arguments for keeping referenced essays pertaining to the age of the article itself, but as this was effectively a (now modified) copy of another article made while that one was under consideration for deletion, more time than is apparent has been given. Either way there appears to be consensus that this is not inclusion worthy. It has rightly been pointed out that a large amount of the debate arises due to inadequacies in our existing notability guidelines, but for better or worse this AfD is not the place for discussing the shortcomings of our guidelines and this article must still be held to its standards - and again, the consensus here is that it does not. Shereth 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Joseph Didier[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Murder of Joseph Didier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

One murder of many every year, sad but not notable. Also per the delete arguments in the previous two deletion debates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Didier and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Joseph_Didier. Debate 木 06:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider WP:DEMOLISH as reason to keep. Presumptive (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the reason that the second deletion discussion is because you violated United States copyright laws and Wikipedia policies by a direct copy-and-paste job on the previous versio. The AfD was ended early with a speedy deletion. You fixed the copyvio, but not the notability problem. One of the sources you have givem is simply an online plea to keep the murderer from being paroled, and two others are mere reports of the parole hearing. Your comment above is an attack against the nominator, which is not allowed. You have not provided sufficient independent, reliable sources to verify what you have written, and much of it is laced with personal opinion, also not allowed. You have already been blocked once for various persistent violations of Wikipedia policy in regard to this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you are being so rude. Your facts are not true. I just checked my block log. I have not been blocked. I also did not attack the nominator - read it again. The murder is not just one of many, the area has few high profile kidnappings and murders like this one. I don't know what to think when you already said two statements which are not true. There are sources out there, many in print, not online. Help find it, not just to think of reasons to delete it! Already a suggestion was given and it was taken (re-written). Presumptive (talk) 03:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. User:Presumptive was not blocked, but he was reported to the admins' intervention board (AIV). (I think I got Presumptive crossed up with a nother troublesome editor on a separate AfD. My apologies.) However, Presumptive has sent messages to those who supported his cause in the previous AfD in an apparent attempt to rally support - see User talk:Realkyhick#User:Presumptive - so I posted the ((Not a ballot)) template above. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These people discussed it on their own free will and their own initiative on the previous AFD. Nobody told them to come to the initial AFD. If you keep on nominating an article for AFD repetitive times, eventually you will wear people out and only you and the delete folks will come. Please help out! There is much to write about Didier! Presumptive (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read WP:CANVASS. AniMate 03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These people made comments only yesterday or so. These are people that understand the situation. If you don't understand it, then you think it's only an insignificant murder. The fact that many made comments yesterday or the day before means it's not canvassing. Again, help me improve the article, don't keep thinking of negative comments! Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not canvassing for people who support your position, why didn't you leave messages on every person who commented on the previous AfD? AniMate 03:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I only contacted people that I thought could improve the article and know how to stop repetitive AFD's. If you can help with the article, this would be appreciated. Presumptive (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional facts about notability: The fact that it draws so much community protests decades after the fact says something about it's notability. A lot of these Wikipedia murder articles are just recent sensationalism, something this article stands above and ahead of. Another fact is that the city has a population of only 150,000 but one hearing drew over 54,000 protests and petitions. That's a huge number. If Wikipedia only has things that all 6 billion people know about, then there will be few articles. This event was extremely notable regionally, it's not just a death that is quickly forgotten. Presumptive (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This analogy is not applicable though it's a novel one. I never said that Rockford had no murders then this one came along. What is true is that of the many murders in Rockford, this is probably the most notable one in the past 50 years, possibly in the history of Rockford from 20,000 B.C. to 2008 A.D. Presumptive (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF AFD I've looked at AFD and there is no prohibition on suspending an AFD temporarily. Please allow me about a week to gather new facts to establish notability even more. After that when I am mostly done, the AFD can continue. This could be the cooperative way to improve the encyclopedia. The alternative is (if the AFD deletes the article) that I will recreate the article after a week or two and this will only create hard feelings. So let's agree to hold off the AFD for now.

If you really want to delete the article during the week or so I am working on it, why not replace the article with a blank space and maybe a sentence or two (such as "This article is currently being re-written and some AFD participants have agreed to let this proceed). This is like blanking an article but the article remains in the history. Then in a week or so, I'll present the re-done article that establishes notability even more and the AFD can proceed.

Once again, this is preferable to recreating the article and having the AFD delete people get mad because they think I am defying them. Presumptive (talk) 02:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken but many of the references are not from 1975. There's references form 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2008, etc. Presumptive (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then this needs to be made clear in listing these references. In fact, the customary WP format for a reference is to include the title of an article/news-story, the name of the publication where it appeared and the date it appeared. Nsk92 (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(repeatD) also due to WP:Policies WP:CHANCE, WP:DEMOLISH, WP:PNJCS, WP:BITE, and WP:V all say that this article should remain here adn given a chance to succeed. Smith Jones (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hundreds of sources available"? Please. If there were really hundreds of sources, we would not be even having this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, WP:CHANCE, WP:DEMOLISH, WP:PNJCS are not WP Policies, and not even guidelines but rather essays. Verifiability is not being questioned here, notability is. If it is shown that the event is notable, I'd be perfectly happy to let the article stay and be improved. Nsk92 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please be more careful and do not remove the comments of others when adding yours, like you removed my comment in this edit:[1]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that jeez the purpose of those essays/guidelines whatever was to establish that there is aj acceptable case for maintainign this article and giving it a time to be improved by the dedicated editor contributed it to it rather than automatically deleting it. No article has ever started of as Featured Article quality. Most articles started off as relatively poor quality and were graducally imrpoved by good work from hard editors. If we deleted every article that wasnt Featured Article quality we wouldnt have any ensyclopedia at all. Smith Jones (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These sources, in conjucntion with the sources provided in the article itself, to me proves that htis article is at least notable. remembe,r just because an article isnt imemdiately relevenat to the entire planet doesnt mean its notable. The Virginia Tech shooting was rpobalby not of great relevance in Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka but that doesnt mean that it was not notable enough to get an article here. Smith Jones (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"*******I agree with your but I am not talking only about presnece on the Internet. THese movements are in rela life against the parole of Joseph Didier. All I am saying is to give this a chance and it should be deleted later if the creator fails. Smith Jones (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Spurious reasoning"? Give me a break. I have stated my reasons quite clearly and they were certainly not spurious. I had two main concerns: one about the lack of coverage by media outside of Rockford and the other about whether coverage extended beyond the time of the event. The second concern has been largely addressed by Presumptive's reply but the first one has not. If evidence of wider coverage outside of the local media is demonstrated, I'll be happy to change my vote. Regarding WP:IDONTLIKEIT, again, that is certainly not my reason for a delete vote. On a personal level I feel a lot of simpathy for the victim of this crime and his family in this sad story and I can understand their desire to generate more publicity regarding this case, especially since the convicted murderer in this case is apparently up for a parole hearing every couple of years. But Wikipedia is not the right forum for doing that. If the topic passes WP:N, there is no problem with the article staying in. However, until and unless passing WP:N is demonstrated, I'll stick to my original vote. Nsk92 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A reader of ANI wrote "Something just isn't right there...Just an opinion, when someone's spare time is basically spent editing a page about a murder 20 years ago and argueing about why it's important there is something very wrong with that type of individual. Wow.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment also shows how Seattlehawk94 has no idea about Joey Didier (peace offering: the user name says Seattle, not northern Illinois, so he/she has an excuse) Nearly every year, the story is brought up again on the news, in the newspaper, on TV, etc. This is not dragging up a 35 year old murder. There have been well over 100 murders in the region since then but none of them has the continued publicity of the Joey Didier murder.
Even goggling Joseph Didier or Joey Didier comes up with over a million hits, more than Eve Carson (white college student murdered in 2008), a murder debated on Wikipedia and was kept. This may be because of the regional coverage of Joey Didier every few months.
Also of note (will be introduced into the article if it's not AFD'ed) is that Joey Didier is one of the few C class murders in nothern Illinois whose parole has always been unanimously denied. Most or all others have had some support by the parole board, such as a 9-2 vote or 7-6 vote, etc. (I located a reference to confirm this) Joey Didier's killer/kidnapper has always been 11-0 in every of the more than a dozen times.
Also of note is the recent comments in the first AFD, exerpted here because the first AFD was just days ago.
Keep. This murder had a strong effect on the community (thus making it notable) as the reliable sourced provided by the article attest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep Per One Event stuff keep the article on the murder if the event is notable and delete the other one if the subject is only notable because of the one event. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep Notability seems to have been established. This needs cleanup and inline cites, but not deletion. Also, before it ends up here at AfD anyway, Joseph Didier should be redirected to this article as per the usual outcome. Jim Miller (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak keep but merge. There's no need to have two articles on this. My preference would be to make Joseph Didier the main article as someone looking for information on this 3-decade-old event will type in the guy's name, not "Murder of ..." 23skidoo (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This comments are in italics to highlight (make it clear) that they are reported here by me. Presumptive (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're getting over a million ghits you're doing it wrong. Googling "Joseph Didier" OR "Joey Didier" returns a google estimate of only 5,390 hits. As is usual with Google, this is a vast over-estimate since if you scan through to the end of Google's list a couple of times (click the page '10' button on the bottom of the search) you'll find that Google only actually returns 324 unique hits, most of which are entirely irrelevant. Debate 木 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmithJones - I have to take issue with your suggestion that "empathy with the victim" is a basis for keeping the article - this is an encyclopaedia, the key driver here is notability not sentimentality. I also object to your tacit implication that I (and indeed other contributors to this debate) am lacking empathy which is an offensive and baseless accusation. Let's try and keep this discussion grounded firmly in Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and steer clear of emotive arguments and ad hominem attacks. nancy (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage over a one month period in 1975 still fails WP:NOTNEWS. Also, Rockford is only a couple of counties away from Chicago - it's so close it's virtually a suburb. Debate 木 01:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles date from March 5 to October 28 of 1975. The area and population that the Trib covers is much larger than Rockford's paper, hence its selectivity must be higher.John Z (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for stories, 2-3 stories appear in the Freeport Journal Standard every year. If you need help, contact the librarian at 1(815) 233-3000. Several other newspapers have coverage. There is also TV coverage even 35 years later. This is truly an exceptional murder of the over 100 that have happened in the past few decades. The others don't get such coverage. The beauty of having a wikipedia article is that we can convert information in print to online so as to bring knowledge to the world. If we only cite websites, then we are re-hashing stuff easily available and potentially just creating noise and recycled bytes. Presumptive (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more important the news source, the farther removed from Rockford and the later in time, the better for notability.John Z (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vote reaffirmed. Presumptives point are brilliant, and are for more accurate than the aspersions cast by the deletionists Smith Jones (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith Jones, it is not a vote, and its a little unorthodox to note your opinion as you are, twice. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully point out a wrong statement, namely the story has been covered much more "than a short period of time". It continues to be covered since 1975, including 2008, 2007, 2006, etc. This continual coverage is part of its notability.Presumptive (talk) 04:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the references being discussed up above refer to efforts of friends/family/local citizens to keep the murderer behind bars .... there is nothing notable about groups of people banding together to keep a convicted person behind bars when their parole comes up. They are sometimes covered in the press. Also, there may be some local commemoration of the event. Covering a commemoration is not the same thing as covering the event. A Columbus Day Parade commemorates the lading of Columbus, but the landing and the parade are not the same thing, are not equally notable, and coverage of the parade is not the same thing as covering the landing of Columbus. The commemoration may be notable and the event it commemorates may be notable, but just be cause something is commemorated, does not establish its notability, even if it is given a story every year in the local paper. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith Jones - you seem to be confusing the victim (Didier) with the perpetrator (Lower). Didier is not in prison, he is dead. Lower is in prison. Didier was 15 when he was killed, hardly likely to have been a prominent computer enthusiast. nancy (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it appears that you are correct. But my original point still stands; there is no evidence that Lower was not a prominent computer enthusiast or that Didier's relative could be involved with computer scientific evidenced in the article regarding the Internet that I cited above. I still see no way that any of the anti-Didier article people can argue that it is impossible for either of them to have been involved in computer research and that their families were completely uninvolved either. Smith Jones (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all very interesting but what I am struggling to fathom is what this speculation has to do with establishing the notability of Murder of Joseph Didier? nancy (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IT does not relate directly oto the notability of the article. HOWEVER it does address the veracity of one of my sources and thus proves that Didier or Lower were notable and that their crime was notable under WP standards. Smith Jones (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, not sure if I have this straight, but I think that you are saying that if you provide a random web-page which happens to contain the word Didier then that somehow makes Murder of Joseph Didier notable? nancy (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hm it is clear that you have not understood both WP:N and the explanations have been given regarding the multiple sources I have provided throughout this entire AFD regarding the notability of the articles subject. Please, reread my explanations and the policy backings I have cited if you have time and forward any questions to me either here on my talk page. Smith Jones (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smith Jones .... did you just say to an administrator it is clear that you have not understood WP:N? That is not a cool thing to say to anyone, but definitely not something you want to go throwing out to an admin .... especially when they have demonstrated that they do understand WP:N.
Two posts ago, you state But my original point still stands; there is no evidence that Lower was not a prominent computer enthusiast... I think this goes to the heart of a misunderstanding that you are having. You are correct, there is no evidence not proving his involvement in computers, but that's because you can't prove that. In order to do that, we would need to find an article or other written evidence that says "Lower was not a computer enthusiast." The burden or proof on establishing notability is on the editor(s) trying to do so. You cannot come in and say "well ... its up to you to prove that he is not notable." That would require looking for evidence that never existed in the first place.
I respect your passion, but I have to say that I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, delete the article if you want. i dont care anymore. ive wasted so much valuable time arguing this point and its clear that no matter what evidence i bring to bear it will be ignored and other aspects of my posts will be attacked. You can delete this article if you want or keep it if you want. I won't reply any more after this. Smith Jones (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal conciliatory opinion is that the notability guideline is inadequately described and this has created unnecessary conflict. Even if it were better defined, there's a problem to whether it would promote news and new-ism versus history because guidelines seem to favor online news stories over print references. Therefore, a murder of 2009 is likely to meet a revised notability guideline compared to a murder of 1959, which may be an unintended product.

Some Wikipedia articles (kept, not AFD'ed) of the recently debated murders that have TV ratings appeal, such as young lady Eve Carson and nude model Zoey Zane, may not stand the test of time like Joey Didier. Will there be continued references in 2043, 35 years from now and will there be the widespread regional knowledge of the events like Joey Didier? Nobody knows the answer. If the women are not remembered or reported, then we would have come to the wrong conclusion to keep those and (if we delete Murder of Joey Didier) wrong to delete this article.

In short, I'm am sorry that there is a lack of consensus for notability probably due to the ill-defined WP:N guidelines or that the guidelines makes no mention of certain factors that some deem are notable. Presumptive (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of conciliation, a well written analysis, nicely done. May I seriously suggest that if this article is deleted I concur with user:brewcrewer that an acceptable alternative would be to include some of the more pertinent facts in Rockford, Illinois#History, which might go some way to achieving your main aim here while not not triggering the same level of opposition that a separate article has, since WP:N does not apply to article content per WP:NNC. Debate 木 10:25, 26 June 2008 (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.
Category