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. I was ready to discount the number of keeps on this in light of fences nomination. But the revised version of the article and sources show that this is not a BLP1E event and WP:BLP does not prevent us from writing about people who have legitimately been accused of crimes.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Francis Melchert-Dinkel[edit]

William Francis Melchert-Dinkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PERP is the relevant notability guideline for this article, in particular the advice that "editors should remember that someone accused of a crime is not considered guilty of that crime until they have been found to be so under judicial process. If such adjudication has not occurred, editors must give serious consideration into not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured, since doing so not only risks violating WP:BLP, but also may not adequately satisfy notability guidelines."

This case was first covered in Feb 2009, and is still getting coverage,[1] but the case is ongoing and as the article is so dismal I think deletion is best for now. If and only if he is convicted, a new article can be created. Fences&Windows 00:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is in need of development but it's a very interesting case. I'm not aware of any sources casting doubt on the named person's involvement (as opposed to guilt) in what is a very interesting an unusual case.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Userfy for anyone that is prepared to develop it. Off2riorob (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Terrible article. Needs fixing. [Was a terrible article that needed fixing, but I've fixed it.] But we don't AfD because an article is poorly written. There is sufficient RS coverage as here and here. While at fixing the article, the editor might also fix the above guideline, which is poorly written.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:HARM. The number of GNews hits are not impressive, and we need to tread carefully here per nom. I would consider recommending differently if there was enough to pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (I'm talking Natalee Holloway-type coverage), but there is not. Location (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. This BLP seems contentious as it is currently written. If sources exist to establish notability of this individual (which I have not been able to find), then perhaps it would be appropriate to userfy or incubate the article until it can be properly worded and sourced. SnottyWong ^yak 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E... not enough here for an article without original research... potential defamation issue... for biographies the default has to be to leave people alone... Arskwad (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge to Internet suicide unless somebody can show how the policy WP:BLP1E does not apply. Abductive (reasoning) 10:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. BLP1E does not apply, because what is at issue is clearly a number of events. [BLP1E, by its terms, applies only to those instances where "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.]. Furthermore, it has received widespread international coverage in countries such as the U.S., the U.K., Australia, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, Taiwan, Vietnam, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Slovakia (in a number of languages), and been covered over a year plus, including in top RSs such as the New York Times, The New York Daily News, The Sunday Times, BBC, ABC, Fox News, MSNBC, UPI, the Huffington Post, The Daily Mail, the Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The spread of the coverage is irrelevant. What is still lacking is analysis. However, I have amended my notvote above. Abductive (reasoning) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The spread of coverage appeared to be relevant to me, given that a number of relevant notability standards -- including that relating to criminal acts -- focus on RS coverage being of "national or global scope" which "refers to how widespread the coverage of a topic is". Thus, the global scope of coverage here would seem to me to support its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, coverage likely to be significant and enduring. Same reasoning used in keeping John Patrick Bedell (even if under a different article name). Tisane ^talk/_stalk 17:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep (assuming the information meets WP:V), much as I would like to get rid of this artiel on a detestable individual. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article is much better now,I agree wthat extensive coverage transcends BLP1E Vartanza (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep International news for deaths he was charged with causing in different nations. The article went from a stub, to a full article thanks to Epeefleche. Totally different article now. Dream Focus 16:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a bit queasy about having an article on someone accused of a crime like this, rather than having an article about the case, but kudos for turning this terrible one line stub into something Wikipedia shouldn't be embarrassed of. Fences&Windows 23:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]