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.  Sandstein  20:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kirk (convict)[edit]

Mark Kirk (convict) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about a convict that has been subject to NPOV controversies (see talk page) but trying to sort them out seems to be doomed due to lack of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Apart from supporting sites and primary governmental records (one link currently defunct) there are only a few news articles covering the trials (such as the copies linked here [1]) but not much that really covers the controversies. I found e.g. this [2] but it does not seem to have been published. So I don't think we should keep it. Tikiwont (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on what I see in the article, this person is not notable beyond the sole event of his conviction for a crime. Fails WP:BLP1E. If the event is notable, it deserves an article. If not, the person does not. --Elliskev 15:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SOAPBOX for a WP:BLP1E. This is a non-notable local event. Aside from court documents, there are only 1997 press clippings at his supporters' website. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems defeatist to delete an article simply because it's frequently the subject of debate. I also don't see a BLP1E issue here; there are multiple events involved here. Fumoses (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said nor meant. One of the reasons why we have a notability guideline is to ensure that we have enough to work with to write an article that meets core policies such ass verifiability and NPOV and it seems to me that this one doesn't meet that threshold.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:BLP1E, WP:N (nothing beyond the murder makes him famous, and even that is doubtful given that there are no references beyond court papers and his own web site), and the article has serious WP:COATRACK and WP:SOAPBOX issues (Wikipedia is being used to re-run his trial in the court of public opinion). This article is basically spam from a convict. VG ☎ 16:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable person by any standards. And I would suggest that it is contrary to public policy to promote articles on non-notable murderers. Collect (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Tikiwont seems to feel the case evidence should be balanced but unfortunately criminal cases do not follow what anyone wishes to be true. Ted Bundy’s case is not balanced between guilt and innocence either but no serious person objects. Cases are whatever the evidence dictates. There is actually a lot of material to expand the article. I think Tikiwont should argue his POV rather than engage in censorship. If he has unpublished material on the case, he can email it to me and I will find an URL for it, so he can reference it. The case against Kirk, however, has four fatal flaws. I seriously doubt a single one of them can be overcome.

• The case is clearly notable as a triple homicide. I suppose if this article is deleted, then most articles on single and double homicides should also be deleted on grounds on non-notability. The article is also notable as a seriously flawed criminal case for anyone intelligent enough to review the actual case evidence and not just “opinions” of local authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danras (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me underline that this isn't about censorship or my own personal opinion whether or not the subject is guilty. Editors assessing themselves the evidence and arguing their own opinion about it is precisely what we do not want to do here. If there is material by independent sources, it hasn't been brought forward and I certainly don't have it.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not present my opinion in articles, but only present the evidence in the best possible light of a defendant to view whether there is reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If such light creates a plausible theory of innocence, then guilt is not proven. The fact that a defendant might be guilty is not especially relevant. Your edits highly suggest that you are contemptuous to a defendant’s view and are not intellectually serious in determining whether guilt is accurately proved.

An inmate based website is a reliable source of case evidence. The inmate wants to get out of jail and has to address evidence known by courts, which have access to all the case documents. You apparently feel that there are some independent sources that contradict the evidence presented on Mark Kirk’s site. Since you have not found these hypothetical sources, and are not likely to, censorship is your only option. You are not the only censor on Wikipedia, but I suppose the good thing is that the Internet as a whole end-runs this censorship. --Danras (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I feel that there are no independent sources at all that discuss the evidence, whether or not supporting or contradicting. You don't even appreciate that i searched for some that would help to keep this article. The fact that I don't want to form or discus my own opinion on his guilt, doesn't mean that I am contemptuous of any views or that I censor things.

Basically you're confirming above what Vasile said earlier about Wikipedia being used to re-run his trial in the court of public opinion. That approach is not compatible with what we're trying to do here. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A tragedy, of course, but one with little notice or impact outside of a very small circle. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2008 (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.