Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Shepherd

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. Personally I think he's very notable, as the multiple major news sources state. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Shepherd

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

• Delete. No secondary sources. Just news. Renee (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

News reports are secondary sources. Primary sources are things like court records. Johntex\^talk 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gruesome murders are committed all the time and some receive media coverage, most don't. No need for an article in this case. This person has also not been convicted of the crime and yet the majority of the article focuses on it. KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. He clearly meets the notability guidelines. The sources are there. The problem I have with this, which I tried to state above, is the media. There are hundreds of thousands of gruesome murders all over the world. They occur everyday. In the U.S., the media loves to grab certain stories and sensationalize them because they need to fill print space and the 24/7 news cycle. This murder and all the others are no different, yet, we cover this one because the news has covered it. Not because it is truly encyclopedic, or because some change resulted, but because it has been sensationalized. KnightLago (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of

Alleged murder of Tynesha Stewart. Johntex\^talk 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Very Weak Keep This incident has received quite a bit of attention in the U.S. That said, just because a person has not yet been convicted of a crime, doesn't make the acts attributed to him any less heinous or less notable. I certainly understand that this could be considered "just news", but given its broad range of coverage, it seems to just barely pass the notability standard. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As sad as it may be to say, I don't think that this awful crime is notable. Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The crime is temporarily high profile, but the article is all "alleged" this and "alleged" that. I.e. "maybe he did terrible things." That's not anywhere near the level to be admitted. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - the subject received national press attention, and easily passes our
  notability guidelines. The article violates no Wikipedia policy and therefore our policy is clearly that we lean heavily towards keeping the article. Furthermore, the involvement of Quanell X makes this far more notable than the average murder. Johntex\^talk 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Does every crime Quanell X gets involved with deserve an article?

Notability is not always inherited. Besides, his article covers the role he took in this crime here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Does every species of bacteria deserve an encyclopedia article? Does every Star Wars comic book? Does every small town in Germany? If they are sufficiently-sourced and sufficiently well-written then they should not be deleted without a clear policy violation. Our starting proposition is that we are striving to be comprehensive.

Given time, one could easily image the article being expanded to include parallels to other crimes, arguments used by the defense and prosecution, a link to an article about the general topic of

build the web. Johntex\^talk 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

There is significant coverage on the case, but not on the alleged criminal himself. That is, the criminal is only notable (for now, at least) for the crime he allegedly committed. Having said that, I would support moving this article to

Alleged murder of Tynesha Stewart, as you pointed out above. Covering arguments used by the defense/prosecution, parallels to other cases, etc. would be more appropriate in such article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I agree with you; that would really be the better title. Unless/until we have facts about other parts of Mr. Shepherd's life then we should focus on the events of the alleged crime, the activist involvement, etc. Cheers, Johntex\^talk 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - This is a fascinating story, most definitely notable. I can't support any of the reasons given for deletion. I say Strong keep. --Art Smart (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets the general notability guidelines. Postoak (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Well-sourced, to secondary sources that satisfy
  The Associated Press, among others that haven't yet been included in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete as per
  WP:BIO1E - as one editor wrote in this AfD, "Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes." The same is true in this article. BWH76 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I made a mistake - I already voiced my opinion to delete on this article above. I still believe that the article should be deleted, but I shouldn't have done this twice. I'm sorry for any confusion that this may have caused. BWH76 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - probable lasting effect, well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Comment - The subject is clearly notable from our guidelines. However, since he is only "accused" I think this could be a
  WP:BLP issue. Wizardman 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - Look, this article has several major problems. The first is that it is covering the person instead of covering the case, as we should be doing. This could be solved by renaming the page, but I don't think that's the solution here since the article makes no claim as to why this case is any different than dozens of murder investigations each year. I'm confused why arguments stating that the article is well-sourced are used as justification for keeping this. Simply being well-sourced is not good enough as
    WP:BIO1E both speak to. How does this fulfill either WP:Not#News or BIO1E? How can we say that this case has lasting notability? What is the evidence of this? Is this specific case making an impact on the American legal system? Is this specific case leading to a change in American society? Although it is an interesting, yet gruesome, story, it does not warrant encyclopedic coverage according to our guidelines and policies. BWH76 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 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.