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 and redirect to List of people executed in North Carolina.  Sandstein  09:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Lee Boyd[edit]

Kenneth Lee Boyd (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)

Similarly to Ernest West Basden who I've also nominated for AfD, why are we honoring this murderer with a Wikipedia article? I can't see any evidence of any special circumstances or long-lasting repercussions of this conviction and execution. Though I'm sure the murder would have got some news coverage somewhere at the time, it's a WP:ONEEVENT situation. An entry on List of people executed in North Carolina should be quite adequate. Sionk (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, having a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with "honoring" the topic: notability is not a question of whether anybody approves or disapproves of the reasons why a person might be notable. Bad people get into Wikipedia if the reliable source coverage is there to support an article, and good people don't get into Wikipedia if the reliable source coverage isn't there. Unlike Basden, a bit of media coverage was cited here (check the external links section rather than the references) — but the number of media links provided was not enough to satisfy the level of reliable source coverage we demand now, and even what little there is consists entirely of dead links whose content we cannot verify. So we're actually right back to the Basden situation: primary sources published by the state's own criminal justice division. To be fair, the article was created in 2005, at a time when he was relatively current news for some people — but I'm not seeing a compelling reason why 11 years later there would still be enough sustained interest in this case to justify keeping an article that's sourced this badly. Redirect to List of people executed in North Carolina, per nom, unless somebody can actually retrieve much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll repeat my comment from the other AfD, seeing as you've done similar) The crux of the argument is whether this is more than a WP:ONEEVENT situation, regardless of whether there was media coverage or whether the subject is 'good' or 'bad'. I should have specified WP:CRIME, which covers perpetrators and victimes of crime. Most murders will get media coverage, but we wouldn't want Wikipedia articles about every murder. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of people executed in North Carolina, per nom. I cannot see inherent notability in Mr. Boyd, or sources supporting it, and neither his crime nor his legal appeal was notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no evidence of lasting notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY, and WP:GNG. A person that is notable is notable.. just because the media doesnt report on his persona anymore, he has been executed what do you expect. Notaiblity is not temporary. Also per good sourcing. The two Delete !votes above seems to be drive-by !votes. BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alsom AfD is not a clean-up service. It is used to establish if an article is notable or not. Problems can always be solved. We do not delete on article quality.BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:CRIME above. You don't seriously expect Wikipedia to have articles on every criminal do you? Even if he was the 1000th person to be executed since the US ban on capital punishment was lifted, that's a bit of a tenuous and long-winded claim to notability. Sionk (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Articls about every criminal? Do we have that? No, we have articles that covers notable crimes and criminals such as this one. A person that is notable doesnt suddenly become non notable simply because the story dies down after an execution. What do you expect, the person is dead. BabbaQ (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You either didn't read WP:CRIME or you disagree with it, in which case change the guidance. As far as I can see the murder was of no lasting significance (apart from obviously to the victim and the perpetrator). Sionk (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You take into consideration one of many factors. While disregarding the fact that the article is well-sourced and had lasting coverage all throughout the time from conviction until execution. That a article receives less coverage after an execution is completed is natural.BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BabbaQ's comments. The lack of coverage since he left the media spotlight is precisely the reason to delete this article: news media reports are almost always primary sources, and coverage after he leaves the spotlight is secondary. You've admitted that there's no secondary source coverage of the guy. Nyttend (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2016 (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.