| Revision as of 18:22, 14 November 2008 editRenamed user 60C3A41B3ABD67D7 (talk | contribs)580 edits →Category:British murdered children: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:56, 15 November 2008 edit undoChris Neville-Smith (talk | contribs)2,847 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{oldafdfull|page=Baby P|date=14 November 2008|result='''keep'''}} | |||
| The case of Baby P (or Child A, as referred to by ) has received extensive media coverage in the past few days (from , the Guardian (links in article), and many other media outlets) and has , so seems notable enough of Misplaced Pages article. I'm not very confident at creating new articles, so I've made this very brief stub just to get the proverbial ball rolling - there's plenty of information out there, so hopefully others can help make an extensive article from it. Sorry it's so short at the moment! --] (]) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | The case of Baby P (or Child A, as referred to by ) has received extensive media coverage in the past few days (from , the Guardian (links in article), and many other media outlets) and has , so seems notable enough of Misplaced Pages article. I'm not very confident at creating new articles, so I've made this very brief stub just to get the proverbial ball rolling - there's plenty of information out there, so hopefully others can help make an extensive article from it. Sorry it's so short at the moment! --] (]) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Adding these sources to the article would help establish notability. -- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> ] ] ]</sup> 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | :Adding these sources to the article would help establish notability. -- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> ] ] ]</sup> 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:56, 15 November 2008
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
The case of Baby P (or Child A, as referred to by Haringey Council) has received extensive media coverage in the past few days (from BBC, the Guardian (links in article), and many other media outlets) and has sparked anger in the House of Commons, so seems notable enough of Misplaced Pages article. I'm not very confident at creating new articles, so I've made this very brief stub just to get the proverbial ball rolling - there's plenty of information out there, so hopefully others can help make an extensive article from it. Sorry it's so short at the moment! --saxsux (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Adding these sources to the article would help establish notability. -- Mufka 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this situation will continue to gain stories in the coming days and weeks, so it seems to be a perfectly valid article. If there is to be a debate over whether or not to delete it, I'll get my vote in early that it should definitely by kept. This will likely be on the level of Victoria Climbie. Sky83 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Dates
Whoops! I think I owe an apology to User:193.111.25.201 and User:Bnynms; I copied the infobox over from the Murder of Victoria Climbié and didn't change the dates properly. Guess I should've paid more attention to what I was doing... I'm adding the (now correct! :P) dates from this page into the article now. Sorry for wasting your time, guys. --saxsux (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Name
Revealing the name of the mother or the name of 'Baby P' is forbidden under the UK's (draconian) press censorship laws, but those laws do not apply to Misplaced Pages as it is not UK hosted. Should we post the real name of 'Baby P'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.44.188 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC) I say yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.16.30 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Would that help matters? Would that bring the baby back? Acmthompson (talk) 09:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
In theory I agree that it's pointless, but the baby and the parents have actually been named in the past on the BBC website, and the article is still up now. I don't really think it matters either way, but if the BBC are technically violating the court order, I don't see that Misplaced Pages have any loyalty to it. Sky83 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This is more of a moral issue (something prehaps Wiki doesn't want or should get involved in). The UK courts protect the parents name for the simple reason of trying not to affect the other siblings more than they are already. Its not really draconian as using the parents name achieves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 10:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would urge against it. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Privacy_of_names says:
Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.
Adding the name would achieve nothing, and would contribute very little to the article. --saxsux (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Category:British murdered children
I saw that User:EchetusXe moved the article from Category:British children to Category:British murdered children, but Baby P has, technically, not been murdered - the mother, boyfriend and Jason Owen were all found guilty of causing or allowing the death of Baby P, not of murdering him - so I'm not sure whether categorising the article as "British murdered children" is entirely appropriate. Does anyone object to moving it back into the original category? Thanks --saxsux (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)