Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Sweeney (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Craig Sweeney}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Craig Sweeney}})

This is a news story, and a fleeting one at that, masquerading as a biographical article. The article was previously nominated for deletion and survived without consensus, but since that nomination was back in 2006 when the events were still current and before concepts like WP:BLP1E ("If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."), I decided to renominate it.

There is very little in the way of biographical sources about this person; the sources are all news stories from a very short window in time in which a verdict became somewhat controversial. That is not a basis for an article on the person. Dominic·t 02:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Although a case could be made to keep because of the controversy. However in general WP should not have biographies of common criminals. If changes in law or policy come about because of this case then his name could redirect to an article on that. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep or rename to Craig Sweeney sentencing controversy. Per WP:BIO1E: "In considering whether or not to create separate articles [about an event or person known for their role in the event], the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Given that the coverage of the events/controversy center around one individual, I am OK with leaving the title as is unless a more acceptable one is suggested. Examination of GNews, GBooks, GScholar reveals even more coverage since the first Afd in 2006, so there is no doubt that the subject matter meets WP:GNG. Location (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• That is not the intention of the policy you quote. The example cited there is the political assassin who precipitated the First World War, a very historically notable incident; the event we are talking about here is not. Murders and rapes, though, happen everyday, and the perpetrators frequently make the news. While it is true that those individuals are a major focus of the coverage, you seem to be suggesting that any murder covered in the news necessitates a biographical article about the culprit. There aren't actually biographical sources from which a biography could actually be constructed, rather than simply news stories surrounding this single event and controversy. Dominic·t 07:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• I am definitely not suggesting that any murder covered in the news necessitates a biographical article about the culprit. Nor do I believe that subject matter needs to be the equivalent of the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria for it to be included in Wikipedia. This particular perpetrator and his criminal act precipitated "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and which exists beyond a short news cycle. In other words, it is not the "fleeting news story" that you have suggested. The intention of the guideline I quoted is to clarify points that should be considered when deciding whether notable subject matter should fall under the name of the event or the name of a person. Given that the event is centered on one particular person, I am OK with naming the article after the person or the event. Location (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep - per House of Commons. also rename to Craig Sweeney sentencing controversy.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

: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.