Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Riana Agustina: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:32, 10 November 2023

Killing of Riana Agustina

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Although tragic, I am not sure this is for wikipedia under WP:NOTNEWS. Govvy (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Indonesia, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRIME. No indication of lasting significance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe we can keep it. The issue is that not enough sources were added in the article. The case itself garnered quite the attention, plus it is one of the shortest terms of imprisonment for culpable homicide in Singapore court history. At most I think it needs improvement --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=Riana+Agustina+murder+

https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/search?q=%E6%9E%97%E4%BA%9A%E6%88%90+%E8%B0%8B%E6%9D%80+%E5%A6%BB

I also found newspaper archives of the case. It is quite a lot of coverage, considering the rarity of a wife abusing her husband, and mostly such cases of spouse killing often involve husbands abusing wives before the wives killing their spouses. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005. The crime was used as an example in a 2021 piece by The Straits Times on how the police handles stand-offs [1], and was also referenced as a precedent in the sentencing another case [2], but that's pretty much it. S5A-0043^Talk 01:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep - though not much international attention it seems to have received plenty of national. Sources are ok. Article standard is good. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Inexpiable (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Today source dated 13 October 2006 says it was "a rare move in judicial history, the Court of Appeals sent a case back to the High Court for the trial to be reopened", which could make the case notable. But does it? We have the 'word' of one tabloid newspaper. Unable to access the New Paper source but note it's a tabloid. Quite a bit of the article is based on transcripts of the court cases, which are primary sources. The events immediately leading up to the killing have been presented in the article as if they were straight facts rather than what they actually are which is the accused's version. The Straits Times has a brief resume of the case as a notable example of a police stand-off, helps a little with WP:NSUSTAINED but on its own is not enough. ~~Leaning redirect to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)#2005 unless additional reliable sourcing found.~~ Rupples (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, don't redirect as the narrative in the list of major crimes is sourced just from the transcripts and there's no inclusion criteria specfied for that list. Rupples (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm looking for is some discussion/commentary on the facts of the case or the sentence or the implications of any precedent set or public reaction. All I can see in the sources provided is standard reporting that doesn't fulfil WP:INDEPTH and WP:LASTING. Rupples (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009). Simply does not meet WP:NEVENT (parent of NCRIME) as it lacks WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH and WP:EFFECT. If merge is not accepted, please consider my !vote as one for Delete. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested in the comment above this seems fine. Horrible crime, but not much extensive coverage of it having set any sort of change in public policy for example. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source. The case is referenced in this book from 2013 [3]. Could imply a degree of notability; however, access to the book is restricted. Rupples (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 *'''Merge''' to [[List of major crimes in Singapore (2000–2009)]]. Simply does not meet [[WP:NEVENT]] (parent of NCRIME) as it lacks [[WP:GEOSCOPE]], [[WP:DEPTH]] and [[WP:EFFECT]]. If merge is not accepted, please consider my !vote as one for Delete. Cheers, [[User:Last1in|Last1in]] ([[User talk:Last1in|talk]]) 14:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 *'''Merge''' as suggested in the comment above this seems fine. Horrible crime, but not much extensive coverage of it having set any sort of change in public policy for example. [[User:Oaktree b|Oaktree b]] ([[User talk:Oaktree b|talk]]) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
+*Source. The case is referenced in this book from 2013 [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Criminal_Law_for_the_21st_Century/sCEUBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Lim+Ah+Seng&pg=PR29&printsec=frontcover]. Could imply a degree of notability; however, access to the book is restricted. [[User:Rupples|Rupples]] ([[User talk:Rupples|talk]]) 20:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)