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. John254 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's Josef Fritzl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Boshinoi (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Improvements to the article seem to indicate a further impact than a "standard" child abuse/rape case. keep. Ironholds (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see below - per nom. This is an encyclopedia, not Wikinews, and these crimes are not "verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This guy is only 'known' because of Joseph Fritzl's notability. Since there's not even a partial name or any details about the case, there's not enough material to build an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and rename to The Gaffer). It's now been shown that this case has an immediate effect. Several organizations will be under investigation for failing to notice the abuse. Crimes/criminals that cause such changes are notable. -= Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, I've actually not heard of him being called Britain's JF, but the case has been at the head of all the news broadcasts in the UK- I know wikipedia is not news but the coverage means he meets WP:RS. Not heard of the "BJF" name, but he is known for the dozens of children he fathered, some aborted due to severe genetic abnormalities, something these daughters had to go through. He's not known for the same things quite as JF, there's been more emphasis on the pregnancies, so the comparison isn't really accurate, it's a case of its own.Sticky Parkin 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The subject may become notable, but doesn't appear to be so at this stage. If nothing is added in the next days, I'd support deleting it. JdeJ (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The events are notable but the identity the individual has not been made public for legal reasons. Write about the events, not the person. McWomble (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that this AFD was started by a banned user (Jarlaxle/Grawp or an imitator). NawlinWiki (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD was speedy closed at this point because of the nominator being a banned user. Closing rationale was:

The result was speedy keep . Article nominated by a banned user. Those still wishing for deletion should either PROD the article or re-nominate for AFD. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:ANI led to overturning of the closure and re-opening [1]. Further comments can go below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep There are some sources [2], [3], [4] which indicate a larger picture, most about how much other people knew and the government's response. Suggest changing title to "The Gaffer" (his nickname which the press is going with). There may be an article about the Gaffer's abuse. Or better yet, just a redirect to Fritzl with a mention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. An article on this incest case is not wholly inappropriate, but only when more is known. This is the second incest case in 4 years in the UK, first in Swindon in 2003 [5] and now in Sheffield (in the Times, the subject is referred to as "Sheffield Mr X"). The Sheffield case is considered particularly disturbing because it took place over a period of 25 years, clinched by a DNA test, despite multiple warnings over the years. In the fullness of time (the 25 life sentences were just imposed last week), an article on the "Sheffield incest case" might be more appropriate, when proper independent reviews have been conducted (as demanded by many, including Gordon Brown). Comparison with Fritzl does not seem helpful. There can never be a partial name for "Mr X", because the anonymity of the daughters and their children is protected by a court order. Other details that came out in court can also not be reported for the same reason. Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insanly premature, at the very least. rootology (C)(T) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update to Keep Per the crazy rescue performed by Parkin. Sourcing is much better now. rootology (C)(T) 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• <str>weak</str> strong keep (see below) The title is appalling, it should be renamed or made at a later date when we can use the proper name, in which case it would become a strong keep and this AfD shouldn't prejudice its recreation. I would find it hard to work on this article due to its level of ewww. Unless you are in the UK you can't imagine the coverage it is receiving at the moment and the level of feeling this and other grim cases are getting. The news is full of doom and gloom. It's probably difficult to search for due to not usually being mentioned by the BJF handle and difficulty in pinpointing the specific case in searches without the correct name. Sticky Parkin 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked again I agree with the current name, which has been used in several WP:RS, as no other name is used, to protect the victims. Sticky Parkin 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is almost no information at all available and what is available, belongs to Wikinews not Wikipedia. There is nothing yet to indicate that this person will be notable beyond such comparisions. It can be recreated if information exists to satisfy WP:BIO.Regards SoWhy 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Weak keep Changed !vote due to new sources added by Sticky Parkin, nice job, I think your rationale is correct now. SoWhy 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the case that there's no info and I've already added several more references in WP:RS- more to come. For the time being, it is notable and referenced- and can be further improved. Notability does not pass and the level of coverage this has received, including a statement by the prime minister saying he is outraged, moves it beyond wikinews. The PM rarely comments on individual cases. Sticky Parkin 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my !vote, they were not in the article. I agree that it might be slightly notable now, though I really think we either should rename the article or better yet, change it into one about the case not the person. Regards SoWhy 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment could everyone please take another look as the article now has 31 references, all from WP:RS. The name exists in numerous sources including the Guardian so I personally think its valid, but feel free to change it. The article has references from the Guardian, Telegraph and the BBC amongst others. I personally think with 31 refs it is now a strong keep and far beyond "slightly more notable".:) So I have modestly changed my vote.:) I could add plenty more and probably will some other time. The name is sort of about the case, it is how the case is being referred to. Do you have a better suggestion?:) Sticky Parkin 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually it has less than that. Several references are used 2-34-5 times each. Read WP:CITE and the related pages on how to use a citation more than once. Claiming 31 references when there clearly isn't is very misleading. Still a significant number of references, but not quite as overwhelming as indicated.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned that up, in actuality there were only 11 references.--Crossmr (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends if you mean references, which there were 31 numbered inline citations before you shrunk them, or sources, which obviously I am only human and have only spent six hours or more on it tonight covering all the details (which are the point of refs IMHO) and added one or two different sources even as you were shrinking them. Most articles aren't set out like that in my experience, but it's up to you, it does look tidy but it's not because there are a lack of sources- there are no doubt plenty more to cover I've only done about page one of google, I'm only human, but feel free to add more rather than making it seem like there are less.:) Sticky Parkin 03:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Sticky, who has considerably improved the article, that this is an important case, which should be kept under its own name. The present name is not good. A better name, related to the British media reports, can surely be found. Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is a repository of information. The name of the article doesn't really matter at the moment, as it can be linked to regardless. ðarkuncoll 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment on the name I have changed it to British Fritzl as it is actually more commonly used [6] but I don't know if most of those cases are unrelated and just contemplation of that and other crimes. But we can always rename.:) Sticky Parkin 03:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restructure article. In spirit with my comment above and WP:BLP1E, I think we need to restructure the article to cover the event rather than the person. I agree that the current state of the article is much better and I commend Sticky for his tremendous work expanding it, but as with Josef Fritzl which redirects to Fritzl case, we should do the same with this article. Regards SoWhy 08:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article not mainly cover the event rather than the person? This also isn't his real name anyway, but how about British Fritzl case as 'british fritzl' does seem to be the name most commonly used in the media? Anyway, this is a matter for the articles talk page IMHO. I don't think all that much restructuring would be needed, mainly just a change to the article's name, which we can discuss, and altering the article to reflect that. Sticky Parkin 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree completely. With some rejigging of the lede to summarise the content, the article could be moved to Sheffield incest case (or some variant) with a number of redirects added for the various names used in the media. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable case. However, for privacy reasons it would be better to merge all notable British incest cases into a single article. (Obviously, the same holds for other countries or regions, too.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned about that but in this case they seem to have done quite well at not revealing the family's name etc. A blend of all the cases would be difficult to make, I think this one is notable on its own. Sticky Parkin 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blend" sounds complicated. I was thinking of a time line of prominent cases, together with background information about the political/legal situation at the time etc. Each case would be reported in about the same detail (one paragraph) as this case currently is. I think that would be a lot more useful. If you are interested, I remember seeing something similar a while ago for a different type of crime. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. This is a hard one to decide. It has been much improved, and no-one can complain of lack of references. I don't, myself, feel that once there are four or five reliable sources, much is gained by going on to find 10, 20, 30... especially when, as will be the case with a notable crime, they are just different newspaper takes on the same event. Balanced against the improved sourcing, I set a lot of store by the WP:NOTNEWS criterion of verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact; I know that is only an essay, but I think it is an important criterion to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. Any flap about a footballer's girlfriend's new hairdo will get into a lot of newspapers and so can be argued to be notable, but will be forgotten as soon as the next celebrity sensation occurs and is not really encyclopedic material. This is more significant than that, but for all the deep significance people are trying to read into it, it's really only a horrible crime and will be largely forgotten in a few years.

Given that it looks likely to be kept, I would like strongly to support SoWhy and MathSci - per BLP1E the article should be restructured to be more about the event and less about the person (about whom we will never know much, not even his name) and renamed something like Sheffield incest case; and it could do without the more routine comments of "appalled" politicians. JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 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.