Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisabeth Fritzl

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.

Elisabeth Fritzl[edit]

The result was Keep, closed early per WP:SNOW. Notability is clearly established by the massive international coverage of this case. There may at some point be a case for renaming the article, but that does not require an AFD decision, and there is clearly a strong consensus to keep this article. Discussion of any proposed merger or renaming should take place on the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Fritzl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:BLP, subject's only claim to notability is being the victim of an alleged sexual crime. Yes, it's published in major papers, but out of respect for the dignity of the victim, I'm recommending Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep If this goes, there are plenty more to remove (including Kampusch and pretty much all pages related to criminals and their victims)CreamCrackers (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic case of WP:BLP1E. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note, WP:BLP1E is a long outdated guideline. Wikipedia in actual fact is a newspaper amongst many other things. By now, all the things lots of oldtimers have listed wikipedia "is not", would mean we would soon have to delete about a million articles, including Natascha Kampusch. ephix (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above/WP:BIO1E. Until this deletion happens, I've added the {{current}} tag. Booglamay (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is already being compared to the Natascha Kampusch case. The article will just have to be recreated in a few days. This is much more than an alleged "sexual crime". HtD (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I can't believe this has been nominated for deletion when there is an article on Kampusch on Wikipedia. Unless there is an influx of similar stories, this needs to be kept. If it must be deleted then we will need to delete Natascha Kampusch as well. And the article on Priklopil. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a lead story throughout the world. --Tocino 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article on the event. The existence of one article (NK) is not a reason for the existence of another. Kampusch has gone on from the kidnapp event to perform other media roles which are worthy of documentation. If, in the future, Fritzl does this then no doubt she will get an article. Furthermore it has emerged that there are other people who were kept in the house; Elisabeth may not yet turn out to be the most prominent person within this story. --Pretty Green (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being at least and see how things develop. This is no different in many ways than other articles which detail miseries that have happened to various people.I think this may be best served with an article about the event rather than the person but we can see what happens as things develop. To suggest deleting it on the grounds of respect for the victim would be akin to asking the various media covering the event to stop reporting it and to purge their archives. I know it's not Wikipedia's job to act as a news agency but this event is likely to be examined or studied in future, so I believe there is merit in recording it here. IrishPete (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep/merge. May best be rewritten into an article that covers a chronological history of the event more than the person, but deleting this content certainly isn't going to bring us any closer to that goal. For the time being, it should be kept, at least until something substantive can be written regarding the event. Celarnor Talk to me 23:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E, privacy concerns, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, etc. KleenupKrew (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There are many crime victims who have articles on this site (see Kidnapped Children, Hostages, Kidnappings, among others) whose notability is derived from being a victim, and this one is no exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ILuvTea (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe iprtance depends on the crime. go read the article. DGG (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -- It is important for others to be aware of what is going on. As someone already mentioned, there are plenty of other crime victims stories published on Wikipedia, why should this one be any different?
  • Strong MERGE The particular event is notable and deserving of inclusion in a larger article on kidnappings, etc. This particular article is WP:BLP1E. 75.1.243.237 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge , maybe keep as is, but certainly don't delete. This is comparable to Kampusch's situation. Noble Story (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This even is especially notable due to its comparisons with the Kampusch story and the length of time involved versus the Kampusch story (24 years of captivity versus 8 years along with her children being held captive as well). There will be many more details revealed in the coming days and it is beat to keep this article on it's own so there is a coherent place to put all the information. Merge can be discussed later (though I believe even after all the facts come out this story deserves it's own entry). Diemunkiesdie (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Taking aim at the first call for deletion, there are a lot of other people listed in Wikipedia who's main claim to fame is that something happened to them. And they should be here. This is an encyclopedia. It should be as inclusive as possible, as the aim is to provide information. We should not judge the information we provide as to it's worthiness to be included, but only on it's accuracy and readability, and any judgment on either should only be made with the aim of improving the article. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now. I am all for deleting articles which are merely a news item, but this is one of the most bizarre stories of the late 20th/early 21st century. The nominator grossly misstates the facts by claiming it is merely a one time sex crime. It is alleged incest over a 24 year period of imprisonment, probably a world's record. It has had widespread coverage so far. If it is deleted as a mere current hot news story, and it turns out to have the long lasting significance it seems to have, we could certainly re-create it. Defies belief. And the alleged imprisoner's wife had NO IDEA there was anything hinky going on. Edison (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to let you know, I understand the enormity of the crime we're talking about. My objection is that (a) the story is less than 24 hours old, and (b) we don't have any real standards for inclusion based on type or magnitude of crime involved. I know it's newsworthy and it's attracted a lot of attention, but then so did the Corey Delaney article (which caused no end of drama. I decided to play it safe and recommend deletion, and I stand by my reasoning. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BIO1E is not really relevant, this article is about an event, not a person. It just happens the person's name is the best name for the article. SeanCollins (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I would consider a move to Joseph Fritzl, given there are numerous victims and only one perpetrator. --Dhartung | Talk 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Also I do wish folks would be so considerate as to cut out the insider jargon that permeates pages such as these. WP:BLP1E? WP:BIO1E? Whatever happened to plain English? Peripatetic (talk) 06:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, a) it's tiresome to type out "biographics of living persons who are known for only one event" every time, b) it's a wikilink so people can figure it out if so inclined, and c) Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I can read, Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! states that it is best to avoid using too many acronyms, and isn't a justification to use more. I know that Articles for Deletion isn't the ideal place for new members of the community to begin, but we could probably do more to help make this easier to understand, especially when the deletion notice is (currently) as big as the entire article. --Stozball (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is good practice to type out an acronym in full, with the acronym in brackets, on the first use in an article. This isn't too painful, it assists those who may not know (and shouldn't have to look up), and is general practice in all 'serious' writing. And it's good manners, too, unless you wish to discourage new active mebers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heenan73 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point- I would recommend always wikilinking these (e.g. type [[WP:BLP1E]] rather than simply BLP1E). These are already wikilinked at the top Peripatetic, so follow those links to see what the posters are referring to. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Also, the names are not published in most news papers, as far as I can see. mabahj 07:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and consider the possibility of renaming the article so that it clearly is about the crime, and not about one of the victims. There are after all, at least eight more people involved in this bizarre story. The relevant inclusion policy here is more likely to be NOTNEWS than BLP1E, but even NOTNEWS does not rule out the possibility of articles on current events. (NOTNEWS mentions "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism", something this is not.) Apart from the very horrific circumstances which has turned this case into a major news story, the case also has called into question the role of authorities which should have stopped this, so it's an event with a significant aftermath and investigation. Clearly, care should be taken to write the article in a conservative, and non-sensationalist manner. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this article is deleted, then the all articles on people who have been imprisoned and abused should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.168.104 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I understand the nomination, and its worth discussing. But as an internet based encyclopedia, some times the speed at which we can react to news and create an article, which against definded standrads may seem trivial; needs to be judged against other similar stories and then reviewed after a bit of time. This potential scale of this one needs a bit more time before it can be reviewed properly. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. meets notability criteria in spades. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:BLP1E is irrelevant here, except as an argument to rename into the name of the story rather than the ame of one individual involved. But the affair - to my knowledge - does not really have a name.--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do we wrap up this discussion? Can we remove the deletion tag from the page, based on the rather strong majority of keeps above, and the lack of specific suggestions of something to merge with or rename to?--Noe (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not really suitable as the alleged case took place over 24 years and only came to light in 2008, so to have a year in the title would be misleading. Also not so much a kidnapping as an imprisonment. Perhaps The Fritzl Case‎ would be better. But this alleged crime began with the alleged imprisonment of Elisabeth, so I think it's the best place to start. We can look at merging later once more facts are known. HtD (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second User:Noe's suggestion. Merging it to Amstetten will be confusing a few years down the line so if anything that page should be merged into this one PRasmussen (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Amstetten kidnap case of 2008--GazMan7 (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Other than plain old fashioned censorship, there is no basis for removal. It's not a nice story, but 'niceness' is not a useful editorial criterion.
  • Merge with Amstetten kidnap case of 2008 Tovojolo (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP absolutely! --78.54.65.59 (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under whatever title is appropriate for the case as a whole; we have a (now fully admitted) case of kidnap, confinement, incest, neglect, and who-knows-what-else over a 24-year period. In western Europe, people. Absolutely notable, to my mind. Radagast (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic case of Privacy of Names. Besides that, according to §7 Mediengesetz (Austrian Media Law), publishing such details can end in fines of up to 20000 EUR. --90.146.131.50 (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then there are a lot of Austrian, British and other European media outlets that are going to be fined, not to mention the Austrian police who have released details of the alleged crime and confession! HtD (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is nothing more than a news event for now. If, in time, notability rises rather than falls, then we can evaluate a new article and consider what its title should be. Powers T 14:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a news story, not an encyclopedia topic. Deli nk (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibly rename at some point. Half the things in Category:Kidnapped children were just "news stories" at one point.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP very relevant and valuable. --Mike551 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE ack KleenupKrew [[User:A
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elisabeth_Fritzl&oldid=1137823672"