Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 12 August 2016

Murder of Seth Rich

Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no tangible connection asserted in reliable sources between this event and the DNC leaks. It should therefore be treated as just another (non-notable) murder. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The murder of a DNC worker at the time it happened is obviously a notable murder. Moreover, the implications of the actions of WikiLeak in this matter with the posting of a reward for information in the context of danger to whistle-blowers who give information to WikiLeaks, certainly raises the notability of the killing of Seth Rich. I can see no benefit to censoring the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC))

• Delete WP:NCRIME WP:NOTNEWS--Savonneux (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Explain how it doesn't meet those guideslines. My comment below explains why it meets the guidelines. As it is, your comment is not worth much. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Change the name of the article to Seth Rich Based on the reliable sources available specifically discussing the individual and the circumstances surrounding his death, I think Mr. Rich meets the guidelines for a WP:BLP. Additional information and editing to the page as it stands, coupled with a change in the title of the page would be sufficient to keep the article. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Coverage mainly about self-serving Wikileaks statements irrelevant to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• How would you support your statement of non-notability in light of all of the national and international media coverage? And even if WikiLeaks' statements or stance were "self-serving", latching onto conspiracy theory as others have said, or otherwise wrong or objectionable in some way, that just means that the outcome of the investigation could affect WikiLeaks' reputation as well as the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that this makes the murder even more notable. --Joel7687 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This crime has nothing to do with the Clinton campaign. If you disagree, please find RS that link the crime to the campaign. The question has nothing to do with editors' opinions, it is about RS references. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Reliable news sources have described statements made by Julian Assange about Seth Rich as implying that Rich was the source of the DNC email leaks. That makes his death under suspicious circumstances (short by a "robber" who didn't take anything) notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DestroyerofDreams (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note this account, although created in 2007, has only 25 edits prior to this comment. I'm sorry but this looks like a sleeper sock account. The !vote should be discounted accordingly. (Also in this case that is NOT a reliable sources).

Assange is not a reliable source for this and neither is Fox, and we don't publish "implied" facts per BLP. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Assange is not a reliable source regarding the identity of his own organization's sources?

As for Fox News, that was just an example; many reputable news organizations covered the same story, as listed in comments below. DestroyerofDreams (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. No policy-based reason has been given by the nominator, except vague and easily refuted assertion of "non-notable". This incident has received a large amount of coverage for a month now, from the time of his death to the recent WikiLeaks/Assange statements, with dozens of articles in such outlets as The Daily Telegraph , The Independent , The Washington Post , Sky News , ABC News , Washington Times , CBS News , and so on. There is a lengthy and detailed Snopes article on the theories surrounding his death . It's fairly obvious that this death meets the notability requirements. What people think of this death and the theories/circumstances surrounding it, which appears to be a key part of opposition to the article and its contents, is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that this incident has received plenty of detailed coverage in numerous reliable sources. Therefore someone needs to show that the coverage is not detailed enough, the sources are poor, or there are very few sources, but it's pretty clear that no-one is able to do that. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if these references were to establish notability, they would be establishing notability of a conspiracy theory not about a crime or a real world individual. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The sources cover a range of topics, from the killing, facts about Rich and his work, the theories and speculation, WikiLeaks' involvement, etc. TradingJihadist (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WP articles are about a topic -- they don't "cover a range of topics" That's the whole point. It's WP:SYNTH and for this and other reasons it violates WP:BLP. Please review the pages at those links. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Even if Rich and his death would otherwise be non-notable, there is extensive discussion, including in numerous mainstream media stories, about whether he was the source of the DNC leak that led to the DNC chair stepping down. WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information, which they do not do for most murders. This is more than just another murder, even if it does later turn out that the events would not have been notable if the circumstances had been known from the beginning. --Joel7687 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"even if it does later turn out " - this is WP:CRYSTALBALLING. We do not know what will "later turn out" and since this is an article about a recently deceased person (so BLP still applies. It also applies since this has repercussions for the guy's family) we err on the side of caution. IF "it later turns out" that there was a significant link between WikiLeaks and Rich THEN this article can be created etc. For now, BLP says "be cautious". So it should be deleted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:CRYSTALBALLING applies. The event has happened, the media coverage has happened, the WikiLeaks reward offer has happened. I think that all of this combined is notable already, and the possible future developments that I was speculating about are developments that might make murder itself seem less notable, even if it is now at the center of a larger set of events. --Joel7687 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Joel7687, what you say is certainly true about those things happening. But to use language like "even if it does later turn out" opens yourself up to attack by unprincipled editors who will latch on to anything in order to unleash a torrent of acronyms - even though anyone can read your comment and interpret what it means and know that it has nothing to do with "CRYSTALBALLING". TradingJihadist (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NCRIME. Also see WP:BLP1E. IF there was substantial indication of a link to the Wikileaks nonsense then maybe. But there isn't and this article's purpose seems to be just to fan the flames of conspiracy theories. (Also, I'll repeat my earlier comment, that a brand new account with the username "TradingJihadist", knows precisely how to create a brand new article, nominate it for DYK and then navigate DYK criteria and process. Obviously not a brand new user.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of coverage in reliable sources. Interesting mystery about what the role of Wikileaks is all about. In any event, Hillary Clinton has specifically and publicly referred to Rich's murder in connection with her support of tighter gun control regulations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how many murders Clinton has referred to in talking about gun control. Surely that doesn't make them notable. It's a trivial, passing mention, not significant coverage. StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps reliable sources should have treated it that way, but they didn't. For example, the Washington Post devoted an entire article to it: Hermann, Peter. "Hillary Clinton invokes name of slain DNC aide Seth Rich in calling for gun control", Washington Post (July 12, 2016). When these things hit home, politicians react more forcefully.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with Volunteer Marek's logic above. --Krelnik (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Per Volunteer Marek. It's just non notable crime. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly notable due to the amount of coverage and conspiracy theories surrounding it. Rossbawse (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, a lot of the coverage is due to the conspiracy theories, but even without the intrigue this would deserve its own page as a prominent unsolved murder. Relisha Rudd deserves her own page, too. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per Volunteer Marek, also fails the 10 year test. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NCRIME and WP:CRYSTALBALLING. I think User:Volunteer Marek and User:SPECIFICO sum it up nicely Valeince (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates