Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Leone

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 Mandsford 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Leone

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

Not by any means the first, or last, person, to be indicted for having sex with others knowing they were HIV+. Notable? (brought here from ANI). Possible merge target at Criminal transmission of HIV. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close this AFD The user want the page merged not deleted, a message about merging can be added instead. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator just wants the deletion discussion occurring at ANI to occur in the proper location for deletion discussions instead. Having said that, I'm also perfectly neutral on this myself; so eventually this can be closed if nobody actually favors deletion. Do let it run a bit first, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be possible to make a strong case for redirecting to criminal transmission of HIV based on
WP:BLP1E, but as so often, that depends on how you parse it. There was one conviction but many incidents of criminal infection. And when the criminal act is newsworthy enough, BLP1E loses its force, which is why Mark David Chapman has his own article. Arguably this has made enough headlines. Besides that, the sources are eminently reliable and Leone pleaded guilty. The article has a reasonably neutral point of view and BLP doesn't mean we aren't allowed to tell the truth when we can prove it.—S Marshall T/C 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - This guy is nowhere near as notable as Chapman. Marshall, your arguments sound to me like you're putting truth ahead of notability. I have no doubts (at this point) about the sources being good. But I'm just not sure about notability. I don't know exactly where the line is, I'm not sure if anyone does, but this seems borderline at best. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know he's notable because if you look at the bottom of the article, you'll see a list of all the
WP:BLP1E.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete
WP:BLP1E does apply here. At most this fellow might warrant an entry in an article on the criminal transmission of HIV, but certainly he doesn't warrant one of his own. MtD (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:BLP1E. While it might be permissible to discuss this individual in an article on the criminal transmission of HIV, because there are verifiable facts here that might illustrate a notable subject. Under no circumstances should their be a redirect - if we agree he's not notable enough to justify a personal record in this encyclopedia (BLP1E) then we should not have a redirect which simply links his name to a crime (and would do so without a reference). Not notable means he's not someone we note -and if you look him up by name, you'll find him not noted. Using him as a verifiable illustration in another article (if indeed that would help that article) is another thing entirely.--Scott Mac 02:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep and do not merge. Clearly individually notable: unusually extensive crime, unusually wide coverage of it. this is just about opposite to the sort of situation BLP 1E was intended for. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I don't have a particular problem with a merge/redirect to an article detailing cases of people convicted of criminal HIV transmission. BLP is not applicable here: the man is an admitted and convicted criminal, there's RS coverage enduring for 4 years. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Jclemens makes a valid point about persistent coverage. It certainly is notable although may not quiet rise to the status of John Hinckley it is unique in its nature. JodyB_talk 11:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merging. Subject is covered extensively in reliable sources. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and don't merge. Independently notable, and BLP1E not a factor here given the depth and duration of coverage. Thparkth (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relatively few people have been convicted of criminal transmission of HIV, and it seems at least in this case that is enough to make Mr Leone notable. This is a possible merge target into
WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 02:51, 8 November 2010 (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.