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 no consensus. Please discuss article on talk page. --VoL†ro/\/Force 23:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Studebaker

[edit]

Not notable. Yet another unremarkable criminal, listed for a single briefly notorious crime. Dybryd 04:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article looks remarkable enough for a paperless encyclopedia, all of the facts are backed by multiple non-trivial sources. Burntsauce 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seriously??? Even this guy? What the heck does WP:NOT#NEWS even mean, then? Dybryd 17:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! Why do we have an "In the news" section on the FRONT PAGE of Wikipedia? Boggles the mind. Burntsauce 17:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think that WP:NOT#NEWS ought to be removed from the policy, or altered? Or do you think it says something different from what I think it says? Dybryd 18:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The In the News section is used to keep track of news events which are covered in Wikipedia articles. It is not a newspaper, that's why we have Wikinews. Corvus cornix 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable criminal. Corvus cornix 22:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a play called Blackbird, which opened up in New York early this year that, according to its playwright, was inspired by this case. It premiered overseas in 2005. Does that have any bearing on this discussion?Here is the NY Times review. And this is a review from the 2005 Edinburgh Festival.--Sethacus 04:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I think that would make it a more notable case because it's had an effect on popular culture. Red Fiona 11:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The play looks notable in its own right - won the Lawrence Olivier Award and all (in fact, I think I'm off to start a stub on it after I post this). However, the guideline on biographies of people notable for one event (on which I based this group of nominations) emphasizes "cover the event, not the person" - that people who are unremarkable except for a bit of media attention should not have articles of their own, but should be mentioned in the article about whatever they're connected too. My reading of how this apples to Tony Studebaker is that he merits a sentence in the article on the play: "The play is based on the cased of an American Marine, Tony Studebaker, who abducted a twelve-year-old girl." and that is sufficient.

Dybryd 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep.--Sethacus 03:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have had no impact upon the world beyond the normal effect of a crime of this type, which though tragic, is not notable simply because it happened. Coverage seems to be non-remarkable, and there does not appear to be anything encyclopedic to say about the event. (Did not garner significant public attention or outrage, did not change policy or become the subject of specific law reform, did not become the subject of a significant advocacy campaign etc.). From a quoting specific policy perspective - per: WP:NOT (indiscriminate information and news) and WP:BLP. Just noticed the comment above by Sethacus. Merge into Blackbird (play) 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and redirect ~~Delete and redirect~~ to Child grooming and to Blackbird (play). The article is not a biography and needs to be judge on the criminal event, which it fails per WP:NOT#NEWS. Thus, delete. However, in February 2004, Scotland created a specific crime of internet grooming in direct response to to the Toby Studebaker case.[1] Toby Studebaker might deserve mention in Child grooming since the law creation activity was by Scotland, not Studebaker. Also, Blackbird (play) was inspired by the child grooming event, so Toby Studebaker might deserve a mention in Blackbird (play) since the inspiration activity resided in the author of the play. -- Jreferee t/c 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Changed to "weak" in considering AnonEMouse reasoning below, there is a lot of Toby Studebaker reliable source material, perhaps enough to support a Toby Studebaker article about the event and add to Child grooming based on Toby's nefarious inspiration to Child grooming laws and to the Blackbird play. -- Jreferee t/c 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event got international coverage Spain Australia, and of course countless in the US and UK. Then the Scottish law and the likewise internationally famous play. The event clearly deserves coverage. I would not be against changing the article to be about the event, not the person, but that requires keeping almost all the content and the edit history, that's not a deletion, and certainly not a merge into the play and Child grooming. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Blackbird (play). Bearian 22:10, 15 October 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.