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. Agree that it is too soon. If and when this guy is found guilty, we can write this article, but at this time it is uncomfortably close to a BLP violation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Adelson[edit]

Charles Adelson (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)

This person is not in any way notable outside the context of the murder, and has no proven involvement in that. I don't see any purpose in this page but to disparage or smear the subject; G10 was declined (I may have been wrong to nominate it, I don't know). Contesting the nomination, the article creator wrote on the talk-page: "Charles Adelson is a well-known figure due to his family connection with a prominent murder victim, and public police speculation about his possible involvement in the murder. A Google News search for Charles Adelson shows 43,800 results, most related to the murder case". Family connection, speculation, possible involvement – since when were those criteria for inclusion here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person is certainly notable enough for an entry. There are numerous neutral reliable secondary sources that discuss the individual. It is true that the overwhelming majority of sources relate to the individual's connection with a murder case---police have indicated that the individual is suspected of having conspired with other family members and hired killers to murder his brother in law. According to WP:CRIME, a suspected perpetrator is a good subject of an entry where the motivation for the crime has been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event or where the victim is a celebrity or otherwise reknown. Coverage of the murder is now in its third year and was recently the subject of an ABC News 20/20 report (http://abc.go.com/shows/2020/episode-guide/2016-09/16-091616-in-laws-&-outlaws). The murder victim was an internationally known law professor, although the degree of celebrity can be disputed. It is true that the individual has not been charged with a crime; however, the court has released sufficient documentation to show that Tallahassee police sought to charge the individual, and that the State Attorney determined not to press charges in the absence of additional evidence (the investigation is ongoing). All this is documented in the numerous neutral reliable secondary sources cited in the entry, as well as the individual's claim of innocence. Just because the notability is unflattering doesn't make it a smear or disparaging. Knowitall369 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for citing WP:CRIME, Knowitall369. What does it actually say? Here are a couple of things:
  1. "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". Well, that's certainly the case here: Dan Markel.
  2. "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". This person (as far as I can see) is not even an alleged culprit.
Comment. A redirect to Dan Markel might be a reasonable alternative to deletion (strike based on comment below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Reread the sources. They are very clear in stating (repeatedly) that the police view Charles Adelson as a suspect in the conspiracy to murder Dan Markel and that whether and when to indict Charles Adelson has been the subject of a dispute among members of the prosecution (police and State Attorney's office). Charles Adelson is certainly presumed innocent, and that is the way the entry is written. At the same time, the suspicion regarding his involvement is not from members of the public, but from the crime investigators, and is quite public (and notable).
  2. The material relating to Charles Adelson can only partially be incorporated in the entry on Dan Markel--not only because the entry on Markel is already long (with a disproportionate amount of material on the murder), but also because information about Charles Adelson not related to the crime is inappropriate for the Markel entry. If you want to do the work, it would make sense to create a new page on the Dan Markel murder, and create a sub-entry there on Charles Adelson with all the relevant material on the Charles Adelson page. It doesn't seem to me worth the trouble, but if you want to do the work, go ahead. In the meantime, I would suggest you cease your attempts to delete the page on specious grounds. Knowitall369 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2017 (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.
More