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. A confluence of several factors led me to this result: First, the policy argument for deletion seems to be a clear application of NOTNEWS. Those seeking to rebut this argument repeatedly pointed to the likelihood that sources confirming historical notability would accumulate as the investigation continued. While probably true, it is an implicit acknowledgment that proof of historical notability may be lacking now. Furthermore, the canvassing of keep votes was troubling. I am willing to userify this article on request, and I wouldn't be surprised, as multiple editors mentioned below, if this event ultimately has an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Epping murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While it's sad to see a family murdered but Wikipedia is not news, at this stage the murder is not notable (The New South Wales Police has released very little due to the on going investigations) even though there is a lot of media reports which most are just speculation not yet supported by the police. If something happens to make this notable the article can be undeleted. Bidgee (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage in reliable sources is enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In what way is it notable? Murders happen all over the world everyday and only a very small percentage are notable. Bidgee (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I came here there was a practical rule that a single homicide was not notable but a multiple homicide was. It seems to have shifted upwards. It seems obvious that this will get enough continuing coverage to be notable. DGG (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where do you draw the line for a multiple homicide? Having 5 people deceased only makes it minimally notable. If it was what the media have been speculating then it could be notable but at the moment there are no suspects, no motive. and the autopsy results haven't been given to the police (expected on Friday). Bidgee (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unfortunately, five murders in a single event is no longer particularly notable. See, for example, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. WWGB (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are rare, and I have a research article to prove it: According to The British Journal of Criminology, fewer than 3 percent of homicide victims die in multiple homicides. Adjusting for numbers, that seems to be about 1% of the total crimes. Proof by anecdote is a fallacy, but actual investigation is not a fallacy. DGG (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Arbitrary rules about the number of people dead are quite frankly useless in assessing the encyclopedic worth of an article. As it stands this article is a news article, not an encyclopedia article and at the moment there is little encyclopedic to write about the subject. Perhaps when more information is available and the crime is placed in some context by third parties an encyclopedic article can be written. Until then this does not belong here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agreed, covered by WP:NOTNEWS. Likewise, any claims about possible future developments is WP:CRYSTAL. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any "crystal" content should be removed, not used as a stick in AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Comment. Shall we also remove the comments of any editor brought here by WP:Votestacking activity? WWGB (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with previous two points. LloydGraham (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article relates to a very notable and unprecedented situation in the jurisdiction which has attracted widespread public attention and desire for information. There is significant information available for referencing, which does need improving, and the availability of relevant information can only increase over time. To say that five murders in a single event in suburban Sydney is not particularly notable and then make comparisons to incidents that occurred in the United States, with one of the highest homicide rates in the world, is not a realistic comparison. There are other comparable articles such as Crawford family murder, Easey Street murders, Wanda Beach Murders, Central Coast Massacre and Murder of Caroline Byrne in existence. Almost seems to be an argument for the sake of having an argument because the continued existence of the article will ultimately be justified. Ajayvius (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment It's understandable that you want to want the article kept since you're the creator but just because other articles may exist doesn't mean or makes this article notable. Some of the articles you have listed are notable but some others are debatable (One of them seems to fail) but we are talking about a different murder (This isn't about Crawford family murder, Easey Street murders, Wanda Beach Murders, Central Coast Massacre and Murder of Caroline Byrne as those investigations have been completed and justice has been served with the murders where the suspects have had there day in court) and country (US has a different population to Australia so of course the US will have a higher rate). Main thing is that it will be sometime before we know most or all of what happened and at the moment this belongs on Wikinews rather then Wikipedia as it's not yet encyclopaedic. Bidgee (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not correct to say that the other murder investigations referred to have been completed and justice has been served with the murders where the suspects have had there day in court. Several of those murders remain unsolved, i.e. no arrests or trials. The murder RATE in Australia is most definitely lower than the United States. Whilst Australia's recorded population in 2007 was 21 million ^[1] and the United States population in 2008 was 304 million, ^[2] the homicide rate for Australia in 2008 was 1.2 victims per 100,000 persons ^[3] in comparison to the United States at 6.2 victims per 100,000 persons ^[4], a rate some five times higher. Ajayvius (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment With all due respect, it appears to me that you are WP:Canvassing for keep votes on users talk pages. Martin451 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've noticed that Ajayvius was canvassing [6], [7], [8] along with 24 other user talk pages! Bidgee (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Let's not mince words, it's attempted WP:Votestacking and it's really poor form. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Unfortunately, a family gets killed somewhere in the world every day, and it's pure speculation that this would become historically or internationally notable. If a paperback about this appears in the "true crime" section of a bookstore, bring it back. Mandsford (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Otumba (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tragic, but WP:NOTNEWS applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait six months It is much too early to say if this proves to be a notable event or a 'nine-day wonder'. We should wait for arrests/trials and see if these contain sufficient content that would justify a full article. Saga City (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & Expand. The event is cearly notable, meeting both WP:NN and WP:N/CA. If a notable event (i.e. one which receives significant coverage) happens every day, then Wikipedia should have a new article about an event every day. I don't think we should delete pages just because there are lots of them. And this event has received "significant coverage in sources with national or global scope", see ABC News, news.com.au, The Age. This isn't "routine news coverage", so WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply. The fact that it currently contains very little information is something which should be improved, and can be thanks to the significant coverage, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:NOT#NEWS. This is a single event, and the murder of a family is a far too common event. Martin451 (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A local murder, not notable on a world scale. The only justification on it being kept is per Kingpin and national coverage. Personally I think the event itself is not that notable. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep extensive coverage, there may not be as much information as we would like but there is certainly enough notability. Have no doubt this will be written about and analysed extensively, similar articles on older murders have been deemed notable. It seems foolish to delete this and re-create it again in a few days - even we had to wait until something happens to make this notable , which we don't. Rich Farmbrough, 11:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment It will be sometime (months maybe a year [depends on how strong the evidence/information that the police have]) but it will be more then a few days. Unlike articles on past murders this article will not have to information needed to make it notable, also most media outlets are/have been reporting the same information on top of adding there own speculation without any police backing (IE: Media releases). Bidgee (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reason as everyone else says, NOTNEWS. The article itself only has one source, and a google news search turns up more but I don't see how any of them are significant; it's all just typical media excitement. Unless someone can cite a real source talking not just about this event but about the 'media buzz' it has generated, there is nothing to see here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as mentioned previously, not the news. Possibly worth a mention, if properly sourced, in the Crime in Sydney article.  florrie  14:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a story that can grow with time, and it is sourced well. So i say Keep because i dont see any reason for a deletion of the article at this time.--Judo112 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is notable, and sourced, has potential to expand above what it is today.--Judo112 (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "sourced well"? The article names the victims but the source does not. With respect, the article isn't sourced well although it probably has the potential to be well sourced if the article is kept.  florrie  23:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable historic event. The article has the potential to grow and it shouldn't be to hard to find references for this kind of article. As more news comes to light regarding the investigation and apprehension of the culprits as well as their motives more reliable references should be made available. We have similar crime articles, see Wanda Beach murders and William MacDonald not Ronald (serial killer) . Adam (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment The name of the article should be changed. The name Epping Murders could refer to any murder that has happened in Epping.. Adam (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article was initially titled North Epping massacre which would overcome that issue. Ajayvius (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If the article is kept, the title should be disambiguated to either Sydney, NSW, or Australia, as Epping Forest in England is well know as a dumping ground for murder victims, and the odd massacre e.g. [9] Martin451 (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Notable historic event."? In what way is this historic when this has very little police information has been released? As I've said you can't compare other crimes to this one. Bidgee (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentWe should also give the article some time to improve and to grow . Adam (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Let it be noted that, to date, 5 Keep votes [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] have been recorded by editors specifically canvassed by User:Ajayvius, the author of the article. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the author has done anything wrong apart from bringing this to my attention . Adam (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The message read "Hi, seeking support to keep regarding North Epping murders". Guideline states "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors" WWGB (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that a) it is not a straight vote, it is consensus, and those five could have valid points. b) we don't know if any of those people would have come here anyway. c) I came here because I saw this added to a talk page that I watch, and it aroused my interest. Martin451 (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, we will never know that. What is known is that they were invited to come here and vote to keep, and that is exactly what happened. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notable event in area. sourcing. overall notability.--77.105.211.130 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:77.105.211.130 is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Judo112. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont accuse me just because you have another standpoint in a certain deletion discussion. Thanks.--Judo112 (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "standpoint" is irrelevant. My argument is evidence-based, as demonstrated here. WWGB (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Judo112 on this one. It's my understanding that a !vote or argument from an unregistered IP address is given little or no weight by a closing administrator in any event. It is my opinion that describing an IP address as a "suspected sockpuppet" of a registered user (suggesting that the registered user is "suspect") is inappropriate in a deletion discussion. From what I can tell from the sidebar, the word "suspected" is inappropriate unless there is someone who agrees with the allegation. I do not agree with Judo112's opinion on whether this is notable, but I agree that he has the same rights as any other registered user on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing the rights of Judo112, I am disputing the rights of 77.105.211.130. WWGB (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we just invalid that IP-adresses "vote" on this issue and also get an end to all of this allegations about sockpuppetry etc etc.. Because overall the editor hasnt edit in a bad faith manour as i can see. And isnt it also a rule that a non-user account cant vote in this Afd debates anyway, or that that persons vote and says are less taken into account.?.. Im just very tired of this sockpuppetry circus when i dont see any true reason for it neither me or that IP-adress have done edits that isnt in wikipedias interest. With the invadility of this vote there is not an issue. Cheers. I still think it is an keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So just done it myself. If someone still think that the vote should counted and that im not guilty of the accusations please feel free to make the vote eligible for counting again. I just wanted to make my standpoint clear.--Judo112 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So, despite your claim that 77.105.211.130 is not your sockpuppet, you take it upon yourself to remove the comments of that "other" editor? Very strange ..... WWGB (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a vote. It is a formal expression of opinion and thought.- sinneed (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that already, thats what i ment with "vote".--Judo112 (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - While it is very sad that murders in and of themselves are not notable other than as news, and wp:NOT a news source seems clearly to apply, they aren't. Yes, it is covered in reliable news services, but so is a great deal of other news, too.- sinneed (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would also wait six months. If notability appears, then we can always add this article back. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. agree with above, the real test is if it is still covered in the media well after the event. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the 'notnews' argument and that we should wait. I have some privacy concerns as well, in that the article may simply add to the problems that the daughter and other family members must be having now. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further to Dougweller, I am concerned that an exact street address has been disclosed in the co-ordinates. I have actually not seen this info in media reports and - correct or not - have misgivings about it being published in WP. LloydGraham (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have removed them once again (actually this time there were 3 sets). If they are added again I will probably remove and protect the article. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Regardless of whether it's protected against being added in again, that information can be retrieved from the article history, can't it? If the outcome is "keep", then the article would need to be recreated with its current form being first on the history. In any event, the person(s) who have been inserting this information should probably be advised about the type of problem that it creates. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2009 (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.