Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files (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)

Non-notable book from a non-notable author published by a minor publisher (who partly function as a vanity publisher, although it is not clear which books are vanity published and which ones not). References are to unreliable sources, in-passing, or to the book itself. Fails WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My articles have received continued attacks by two specific wikipedia members User:wikitgresito & User:RandyKitten. I have proved endlessly they fit in with Wikipedia’s criteria and I believe these are personal attacks on me due to being able to supply hard evidence against the claims made. The above coverage on A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files is in ABC certified news publications. ABC is the media industry’s stamp of trust. ABC deliver industry-agreed standards for media brand measurement across print, digital and events. They also verify data, processes and good practice to industry-agreed standards. Since the continued vandalism of my Wikipedia pages I have dropped an email to ABC & highlighted the statements made about my uploads & as soon as I hear back I will post there response here with there approval.LisaHadley2018 (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking off commentary by confirmed sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing fellow editors of "personal attacks" will not advance your case for keeping the contested article. Submitting for deletion a number of articles you created is not a "personal attack." See here for what is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - thanks for nominating this, RK, I thought of doing so myself earlier today. No sign whatsoever that this meets WP:NBOOKS or WP:GNG, and it appears to be part of a small walled garden of articles about the author and his books. Wikipedia has criteria for reliable sources, and "ABC certified" is not one of them - besides, a press release or churnalism in a highly reliable source would still not be something we'd use to show notability. --bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't seem to find any reliable secondary references that would make this work notable. Cheers Gianvito Scaringi (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment u|bonadea I must highlight unless you work within the media & unless you have read the articles attached to my citations in full you can’t selectively decided the notability factor of the publication online, in-print or its topic because it wasn’t on your radar. Please read ABC website & it will highlight the extreme differences between highly reliable sources and none reliable, which fit into Wikipedia’s criteria of inclusion as well. Press release coverage would run similarly, both in print editorial pieces on A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files are entirely different and both highlight the article’s as EXCLUSIVES. I’m happy to include more secondary reference and will gianvitoscaringi LisaHadley2018 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person in support for my The Complete History of The Howling has highlighted ABC is supported by the PPA which is the professional publishers association. I will be calling the contact at the agency for advice on this situation. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Multiple reliable secondary sources in the article itself. Obvious keep. Emass100 (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emass100 huge thank you for your support this means allot. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Pointing to sources that are not more reliable than those in the article does not make the subject notable. I am sorry for the page creator who seems to be upset but this is our established policy. wikitigresito (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Multiple reliable sources and secondary sources in the article itself.Activist838 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)— Activist838 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A sockpuppetry investigation has been opened. -The Gnome (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out post by blocked sockpuppet. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete appears to fail WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG - none of the sources are independent book reviews, and many of them appear to cover of the topic the book is on, not the book itself. SportingFlyer talk 19:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentHeat Magazine and Now Magazine discuss A Case for Murder: Brittany Murphy Files and include an exclusive interview with the books author about his book. Radar Online solely discusses the book's claims. There are multiple reliable sources and secondary sources in the article itself. Activist838 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out post by blocked sockpuppet. -The Gnome (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, since subject fails notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative note - I have semiprotected this page due to the rather excessive amounts of sockpuppetry and disruption. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire and scorch the earth. No independent reliable sourcing. Most of the sources are utter and unredeemable crap -- one is self-published rubbish explaining the role of the Illuminati in Murphy's death; another runs "news stories" like "36 Infamous Celebrity Camel Toes You Can't Unsee" and "Single & Ready To Mingle! J-Law Wants Amy Schumer To Set Her Up". Worthless. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage in the Inquisitr, The Hollywood Gossip, and the like not sufficient for GNG/NBOOk.Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2018 (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.