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. Srikeit 09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Leanne Tiernan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Muderered schoolkid. Hit the newspapers at the time. No evidence of notability beyond that. Not encyclopedic -Doc^g 21:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not worthy of a bio, maybe a piece on the murder itself if someone thought it was worth it. People get murdered all the time (admittedly most of them aren't school kids) we don't need a bio on all of them. Viridae^Talk 23:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is about the murder. JulesH 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT for memorialising. Eddie.willers 03:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence of "memorialising". JulesH 16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly meets the guidelines at WP:N. Whether this means the guidelines are broken or not, I'm not sure. But I think it's better to keep an article of marginal notability like this than to delete a well-sourced article without being certain it shouldn't be included. WP:NOT#PAPER applies. There's enough information out there for the article to exist, so why shouldn't wikipedia have such an article? JulesH 16:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as being expanded This article forms part of the Wikiproject on British crime and has had another aticle mergeed into it the article is currently in the process of being expanded by myslef and given a few weeks the article will be fleshed out with more information. I say that deletion should be held off until expansion of the artticle has occured and not delted. In the article I have been very careful not to memorialise about the victim and the arrticle entry is not a biography it is an account of the murder. This link here shows why the article entry is important [1] as it was a high volume of pioneering forensic science which was used in the investigation.--Lucy-marie 17:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of why this is anything other than your typical murder case, hundreds of wich happen each and every day. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coment abduction, murder and high pioneeering forensics is not normally found in a typical murder investigation case.--Lucy-marie 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete could be construed as insensitive, and in any case the events aren't particularly notable. Martinp23 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the subject being a minor doesn't make the murder a particularly notable one. Yonatan ^talk 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh no, not again Look, this is not a biography. There probably never will be a biography of this girl. Nor is it an especially notable case. Encyclopaedic cases are those with lasting cultural or historical importance - sadly this does not have any such distinction. It's a news story. It belongs in a news aggregator. If it belongs on Wiki[pedia at all - which I doubt - it would be in an article on the events of that year in Britain, or a list of murders or something. But actually unless it is included in books of notable murder cases I am unpersauded that it has any place in Wikipedia, any more than we have articles on the Beckhams' shopping trips or Elton John's flowers - if there is sustained coverage we can include it in another article, but it is not in and of itself encyclopaedically notable. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment A in Channel Five show was made of the murder showing the high levels of forensics that were used in the case so I think that does make the case a notable case. Also your comments on the beckhams when comparing to this are derogatory towards other editors and I think that poeple like you should try and do constructive things with wiki rather than going aorund trying to get articles deleted.--Lucy-marie 18:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The case is discussed (albeit briefly) in Forensic Human Identification: An Introduction by Sue M. Black and Timothy J. U. Thompson (CRC Press, 2006). JulesH 10:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mention the forensic innovations on the appropriate article relating to police procedures, remove all identifying details (the picture, especially) and redirect this name there. The murder itself is not inherently notable under encyclopedic standards. Delete or merge and redirect but do not leave as is. To enforce the merge, delete until the information is present in the appropriate forensic article. The principles of WP:BLP require no less, as to do otherwise is insensitive to the victim and family. Also, claims of planned expansion should not stave off deleteion. Articles can be expanded (and evaluated in their expanded state) during AfD. ++Lar: t/c 22:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is used to illustrate the victim as the vitcim is dead. So this cannot be covered under a LIVING person biography as the person is dead. THis article is being deleted under the wrobng criteria as the article is not a biography and ther case indipendatly verifiable information in the pubil domain whihc is factual so is liablous in any way.--Lucy-marie 09:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not NEEDED for an article on forensic advances, and the principles of BLP apply even to the dead, as the dead have families. ++Lar: t/c 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lar: you're suggesting censoring the article to avoid offending the victim's family. WP:NOT#CENSORED applies to this reasoning. JulesH 10:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am suggesting that we apply the principles of WP:BLP and WP:DIGNITY and capture the material that is important. That something is not libelous is not sufficient reason to keep it in a form that causes hurt. This is not censorship, it is making sure that WP is WP:NOT EVIL. ++Lar: t/c 10:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dignity is just an essay and is in no way policy and cannot be applied to an account of a murder.--Lucy-marie 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per ONIH. --Fredrick day 10:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment ONIH? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 June 2007
  • One Night in Hackney. Please don't forget to sign your post, and also please indent your comments to show who you are replying to.. many of your comments right now are not indented. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge relevant information to some suitable article on forensic analysis or DNA profiling—oh, look, both of those are available—as a case-study. —Phil | Talk 15:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Martinp23 and JzG. ElinorD (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just to follow up on what others have said. Given that forensic science is constantly evolving and improving, I really don't think we need articles on every single case where new techniques have been used. Some cases do merit an article, eg Colin Pitchfork, but others should be covered in the articles recommended above if at all. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the ethical ideas about the way we treat people (living or dead.) FloNight 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is going over the top with this whole dignity treatin g the dead and living. If the account ios truthful and accurate then it does not infringe anything. Just because the truth may be offencive it doesn't mean it is disallowed.

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.