Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrone Noling (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 01:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Noling

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

The previous AFD focused solely on finding reliable sources for this article. While the sources were found, I am now proposing deletion on the grounds that the subject, known only for his unremarkable crime, clearly fails WP:PERP and WP:1EVENT. Interchangable (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although he was convicted of horrible murders, every murder is by definition horrible. WP:PERP gives us guidance about which biographies of criminals should stay on Wikipedia. This one fails that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has been trough the AfD process. No consensus was reached., I dont know what could have changed that would justify deletion. It ssomething about that, that never makes any sense to be concerning re-nomination for AfD,--BabbaQ (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing has changed, in fact - this man is still non-notable. The previous AfD focused solely on finding reliable sources. The only policies or guidelines stated were WP:BIO by a voter for delete, and WP:RS by a voter for keep - and even that voter said they weren't sure reliable sources were enough. No one cited a policy to show that murder is not a notable act. I should also call WP:MILL in to question, seeing as the circumstances of the crime were highly average. Interchangable (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For a valid keep !vote, you really need to say more than "this has already gone through an AfD". No consensus means that discussion had no clear consensus, and that should absolutely not be used as a reason to keep an article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SNGs are alternate paths to notability, so since WP:GNG is satisfied, WP:PERP doesn't need to be considered. (See WP:N, "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." emphasis added.) Also, the WP:PERP argument has incorrectly not considered the possibility of merging this material to another article. An argument for deletion would be that the material here is of a temporary nature (see WP:N#Notability is not temporary), but the scope of coverage has gone far beyond the Balloon_boy_hoax. The news media love to report on murder. It is also never possible with death sentence disputes to avoid the reality that a man's life hangs in the balance. So even if we were to consider writing a specific policy to prevent "routine" death-row articles on Wikipedia, such a thing cannot really exist, and so we aren't really going to improve the encyclopedia by doing so. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Unscintillating that WP:PERP is just one way to meet notability requirements. But does this even meet general notability? This is a person convicted of a crime in Ohio, and there is a small, local movement to set him free. Questions about his guilt have been raised in local Ohio newspapers on and off over the past 8 years. But I dont see any special significance to the crime, or the victims, or the accused, or the movement to vindicate. I suppose if some national media picked up on it, it might cross a threshold into greater notability. --Noleander (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From The Plain Dealer, "The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper of Cleveland, Ohio, United States. It has the largest circulation of any Ohio newspaper, and is a top 20 newspaper for circulation in the U.S." I'd also think that decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court would count as national media, but I can't cite any policy immediately. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

State Supreme courts rule on lots of things, often of incredibly minimal importance; don't mistake their decisions as holding the same weight as the supreme court at the federal level.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yes, the newspaper has at least somewhat of a national readership. But it also obviously deals with local coverage, under which this obviously falls.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per PERP. The extending coverage is not nearly extensive enough to overrule that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BIO1E, articles like this should be named after the event... and this event fails the sub-guidelines in WP:EVENT including WP:GEOSCOPE. Location (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:PERP which overrides spikes in coverage when someone is sentenced to death. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (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.