Talk:Yamaguchi arson and murders

Name

Assuming, of course, this page isn't deleted, I think perhaps this page should be renamed. Firstly, I don't think there have been other spree killings in Mitake, Yamaguchi, so there's no need to specify 2013. Secondly, is this even a spree killing? I propose renaming the page to something like Mitake murders, Haiku Killer, or whatever the killer's name is. Paris1127 (talk) 16:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The article should not be named for the suspect. WP:BLP1E. The crimes are notable and facts that are reliably sourced should be included. In my view, that applies to the suspect's name. But there's a difference between including the widely reported, reliably sourced name, and creating a full-fledged BLP. I'd support the former, but the latter is a bridge too far, at least for now. David in DC (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Suspect Name

The suspect's surname is Homi, that much I am sure of. However, translations of Japanese articles have his first name as either Kosei or Mitsunari. Could one or the other be something else, other than his first name? I'm not sure how to render his name. For anyone who can help, his name in Kana is ほみ こうせい and his name in Kanji is 保見光成. Paris1127 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

All the reliable English and Japanese news sources appear to have his name as Kōsei Homi (ほみ こうせい). --DAJF (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As another editor disagrees that we should be including the name of the arrested suspect in this article, I have posted a question to WP:BLP/N for confirmation of the relevant guidelines outlined at WP:BLPCRIME. --DAJF (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can understand the concern, although, in my opinion, this article is about the crimes themselves and not the alleged perpetrator. Paris1127 (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If the name of the suspect has been reported in reliable sources, whether it belongs in the article or not is a matter for consensus decision-making on this page. I cannot see any good policy-based reason for excluding it. WP:BLPCRIME counsels that serious consideration should be given to not including the name until and unless a conviction has been secured. But here, the name has been so widely distributed (and appears in so many of the refs) that excluding it seems, at least to me, kinda pointless. David in DC (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

One point is giving a good example what an encyclopedia differs from The Daily Sh..posts of this world. We write articles, not the news of the day. Especially is should be our content on a higher level than the daily portion of CCTF others offer. (CCTF = Crime, Conspiration, TiXXs and Football) --Ben Ben (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Some additional English language refs

ABC News The Hong Kong Standard Agence France Press

I found these while looking to see how widely distributed the name was. I posted them to the WP:BLP/N discussion, and figured someone might find them useful here. Not for adding the name. I personally think it should be included, but that conversation needs more tiime to develop before we reach consensus. I post these here so we can flesh out the article in other ways. I'm headed to work right now (damn I hate how real life interferes with volunteer work!) but over the next few days we need to weave the refs at the bottom of the article and these three into the article as footnote/refs. David in DC (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Victims

While we're discussing whether or not to use the suspect's name, I've been working on compiling a list of the victims, using sources from the Japanese version of the page (and Google Translate because I can neither read nor understand Japanese):

• Miyako Yamamoto (Japanese: 山本ミヤ子, Hepburn: Yamamoto Miyako), 79
• Makoto Sadamori (Japanese: 貞森誠, Hepburn: Sadamori Makoto), 71
• Kiyoko Sadamori (Japanese: 貞森喜代子, Hepburn: Sadamori Kiyoko), 72
• Fumito Ishimura (Japanese: 石村文人, Hepburn: Ishimura Fumito), 80
• Sakoto Kawamura (Japanese: 河村聡子, Hepburn: Kawamura Sakoto), 73

Not sure of spellings, Romanization, etc. This list is in no way definitive and I'd prefer a Japanese speaker go over it before it's posted. Sources: Yomiuri, MSN Sankei, Asahi, Japan Daily Press, ABC. Paris1127 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is this an article?

Just asking. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. At least I think that's why. David in DC (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, that's not a good answer. --Malerooster (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As someone said, if there five murders in the U.S. there would be an article about it without a doubt. Japanesehelper (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The other boy did it also wrong isn't an argument for adults, sorry. The question is, why should the daily news been rewritten in an encyclopedia? Let news where they belong, in newspapers. Except there are any new conclusions presented in sources (a magazin, a book?). For this article, are there any new aspects of killing, burning and running presented? If not, why want to write an article? --Ben Ben (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You can use "other stuff exists" as a proper argument if there is a precedent established by it, Ben. If similar cases are kept in an AFD, for instance, and/or are discussed as being clearly notable, then we can use "other stuff exists" properly. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, why is the quotation about the sum of all human knowledge not a good answer? It's our core purpose. The murders are notable, as determined by multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources. If one thinks an article doesn't belong on wikipedia, one can file a nomination to delete the article. But if the rationale for deletion is

why should the daily news been rewritten in an encyclopedia? Let news where they belong, in newspapers. Except there are any new conclusions presented in sources (a magazin, a book?). For this article, are there any new aspects of killing, burning and running presented?

with the sole policy cited being WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER, I'd be astonished to see the nomination succeed. David in DC (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Because its not. I don't feel that this falls into the sum of all human knowledge, just my opinion, no more, no less. --Malerooster (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We should rely on the opinion of the reliable sources. Remember we have WP:N#General_notability_guideline. News outlets around the world believe it is a notable, important case. There are three dimensions: Time (for how long is this covered?), location (which sources cover it?), and depth (how in depth is the coverage?) - Keep in mind WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER only prohibits routine news coverage or expected news coverage. It does not prohibit unusual occurrences documented in the media. Since coverage around the world has occurred on this case, and articles are in depth about it, all we have to do is wait for more press coverage to occur. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with WhisperToMe, Kozei Homi will eventually be convicted and sentenced (probably to death) and there will be more information. Japanesehelper (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's wait for more press coverage. One year or so after his conviction I will probably bring it to AfD. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)