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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Paul Humphries[edit]

Shawn Paul Humphries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Claim to fame was being executed. Is that a notable criteria for inclusion here? Vegaswikian 06:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The way I read WP:BIO, The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person this is a keeper from the references in the article. Maybe WP:BIO needs some updating, but as I read it, this stays. --Selket ^Talk 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is the central criteria. But which of the criteria below that which establish notability does he meet? Having reliable sources is not the only criteria. Vegaswikian 07:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Vegas, I'm shocked. The list below the primary criterion are only special cases for automaic inclusion. The guideline reads: "The above is the central criterion for inclusion. Below are some criteria that make it very likely that sufficient reliable information is available about a given person. People who satisfy at least one of the items below may merit their own Wikipedia articles, as there is likely to be a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them." --Kevin Murray 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted.

• Keep, the criteria on WP:BIO don't all have to be satisfied, one is enough – Qxz 21:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We need to really understand that the special situations are for inclusion not exclusion. This is a big problem with instruction creep. --Kevin Murray 23:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a bad joke, right? This guy was the subject of a successful death penalty murder prosecution leading to his execution. On what planet is that not notable? It's not just the WP:BIO notability guideline that gets turned on its head and used to AfD articles because they do not meet the no-brainer criteria, even when the notability should be a no-brainer anyway. The whole body of notability criteria are in need of a serious rethink. Dhaluza 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So of the thousands of people who have been executed for a crime they committed, all merit article? Vegaswikian 03:32, 15 February 2007 (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.