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. Wizardman 17:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This subject is only notable for being a child sex offender, and he's no Charlie Manson. Crockspot 03:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question So what's your deletion rationale? I assume that it's not lack of notability, as you said yourself that he is notable. faithless(speak) 05:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my rationale was obvious, but I'll spell it out. This subject is notable only for one "event", and that event is not particularly notable, such as a Dahmer or Manson situation. - Crockspot 18:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a vested interest in this article. There is a non publication order on the victims names and I believe it would be reasonably easy to trace the victimes as the names of places the subject attended is listed in this article and subsequent links. I do not see how this information would be relevant to an encyclopedia.KatieLeone 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of wider importance, fails WP:BLP1E. Compare Michael Charles Glennon, a case which traveled to the national supreme court, and created a journalism ethics furor involving a top national broadcast personality. Disclaimer: I have worked on that article.--Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Will reconsider if evidence is provided that this case is particularly notable. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable --Tom 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable from the magnitude of the crime. Non publication orders in Australia do not apply to the US--but anyway, we don't include the names--quite rightly under our own BLP policies. They would be no more traceable here than they are through the existing stories in Australia. BLP does not apply to him, having been convicted as shown by RSs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Question Why does BLP not apply in this case? Please advise! Thanks.218.185.73.168 01:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I completely misunderstand the concept, every living person is covered by WP's living persons policies. Being in prison does not make a difference.Steve Dufour —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a criminal and is now in prison. There is nothing special or interesting about him. Steve Dufour 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep This article will probably be deleted, and I won't be sad to see it go. He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As far as the only notable for one event argument, he was convicted of molesting three boys over ten years; that's not one event. Furthermore, while this isn't the place to discuss it, I believe that policy is fundamentally flawed. For instance, Leon Czolgosz is notable only for assassinating William McKinley. Certainly he is deserving of an article? faithless(speak) 16:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point. On the other hand Czolgosz has had a lasting effect on history, this person probably did not. A person who commits serious crimes will always get lots of press coverage, but I don't think that really means they are notable -- unless there is something really unusual about them. Steve Dufour 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, but I don't believe that the guidelines/policies of WP make that distinction, at least not very clearly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really saying that I think this guy ought to have an article, I'm just saying that by Wikipedia's standards, the article seems warranted. faithless(speak) 20:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'; As I interpret BLP, we are justified in incorporating negative information--even very highly negative information--if it is sourced reliably enough and relevant to the notability. Thus the information about him passes BLP. By standards of elemental fairness, we are or at least should have a much more restrictive stand on including negative information about those just accused of crimes, over those convicted. A notable event or series of events if sufficiently important does make a person notable. A single instance of abuse would not in my opinion have justified an article. The extensive pattern here and the apparent nation-wide publicity does.DGG (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most criminals commit more than one crime and if they are caught they will be in lots of newspapers. Should they all have WP articles? (If the prisons have computers for the inmates to use this could give them something to do with their time.) Steve Dufour 04:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is on the fringe so no love will be lost if the article should go but I do believe that he meets WP:BIO now that some minor corrections have been made to the article. [1]Burntsauce 21:51, 26 September 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.