Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Eric Wone

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There are reliable sources that reflect the notability of the event, and one may well surmise that given the extensive involvement of the prospective U.S. Attorney-General that it will continue to generate discussion. I agree that there are potential BLP issues with respect to the roomates, and that the article could be edited further there. I also will move the article to Murder of Robert Eric Wone, but that action is taken as a regular editor, and is not a result of this AfD (i.e. revert if you want and we'll discuss). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eric Wone[edit]

Robert Eric Wone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Egregious violation of not only WP:BLP when it comes to the individuals named, but also violation of WP:BLP1E when it comes to Wone himself. He wasn't notable before he died, he still isn't notable. His death is not notable, either. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the names of the other individuals involved are also redirects to this article. I tried db-blp deleting the lot, but my tags were removed. Remove all of them if this is upheld. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:RfD those separately, as there's a specific alternate venue for deleting redirects. If the article is deleted, the redirects should be deleted as routine maintenance, but it's possible that the redirects (from the suspects' names) could be deleted while the article is kept. Jclemens (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Murder of Robert Eric Wone, as Speedy decliner on the redirects. I will stipulate that Wone was not notable prior to his murder, but the event and its aftermath are still getting press more than two years later. There are several additional RS not yet added to the article which are referenced in the BLP/N thread--I'll add them soon. Jclemens (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article has been substantially expanded and cited per my above promise to do so. It's still a bit rough, but there's plenty more coverage to add, if anyone else wants to pitch in. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per Jclemens. A quick Google News search brings up loads of articles on it in just the past month, and taken together with the stuff written about it at the time that adds up to significant coverage and therefore notability. BLP1E is alleviated by the rename, and the only other potential for BLP concern I can see is that there's no cite given directly to the Affadavit section which talks about their sexual relationships. That paragraph should be sourced or removed, but the whole article needn't be deleted for that. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed one statement I couldn't find a source for immediately and cited the rest of that paragraph. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename per above - Possibly could be notable enough before murder, but murder is one of more unusal in DC history, so rename at least. Thank you, --Tom 16:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —- ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not rename - Of course this is notable. It has received considerable coverage in the DC, gay and Asian American press. It should not be renamed as the standard for such incidents where the victim was not notable is to name the victim, thus Rodney King not Beating and trial of attackers of Rodney King and Vincent Chin not Beating and death of Vincent Chin. This case suffers from a distinct lack of coverage outside of DC, LGBT and Asian American outlets, precisely because of the sensitive topics covered by the incident. The nominator has even removed the name of the victim from list of murders in August 2006, which I choose not to contest, but nevertheless object to. This would set a very, very bad precedent which has the effect of helping to keep case like in obscurity, to claim that WP is bound to a "higher standard" where suspects cannot be named, even if they are named in almost every press account of the murder, and every story where Wone is named, they were the ones who invited the victim to their home, were longtime friends and associates and were the first to report the murder to authorities, and maintain their innocence in the face of charges. Please withdraw this nomination.Bachcell (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Matthew Shepherd and Jesse Dirkhising were neither notable before their respective deaths. Consensus in crime victim article naming does seem to favor naming the victim when the preponderance of media coverage has identified the incident with the victim. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting this case has some aspects of the Jesse Dirkhising case, but has not yet been picked up by conservative activists in that the background of the killers is similarly politically sensitive. When created, this article indicated that it had been deleted before, evidently on similar grounds, and I have seen similar instances such as Rozita Swinton (the person suspected of a fradulent phone call leading to the raid of a Texas ranch) where a person with extensive media coverage is claimed to be not notable, with the effect of suppressing coverage on the basis of harming a living person. Bachcell (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, I just got around to looking up the previously deleted version. It was created on December 19th, and the sum of its contents was "Robert Wone was a lawyer who was murdered in Washington, DC."--It was tagged as not asserting the notability of the subject, and I agree with its speedy deletion. The editor who wrote the previous version neither included references (and as we can see, there were plenty) nor asserted that the murder was notable. No need to look for conspiracy theories--fact is, the prior article should have been speedily deleted. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Let's do a thought experiment. Remove everything about the crime from this article. What's left? About a paragraph in the Life section, after removing multiple bits about his death from there, also. In short, he's not notable, and the article is a coatrack to discuss the investigation of the murder and following legal proceedings. From that point, we could write an article about the murder, etc. but there's not much to go with there, either. It's yet another unsolved murder, the only interesting bit is the accusations of evidence tampering. There's also a lot of undue weight given to pointing out the supposed behaviors of the accused (whom I note are not convicted yet, and should have the consideration of BLP as well). As to the comments about famous crimes, I don't see how this compares at all to the televised assault on Rodney King or the brutal and pivotal murder of Matthew Shepherd. There just isn't enough here to satisfy WP:BLP1E for an article on Wone, and I'm dubious about being able to satisfy WP:N for the murder itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm confused: you say the article should be refocused on the murder itself, which is quite valid, but then dismiss the murder itself as unimportant, despite a track record of two years of major media coverage. How many more WP:RS do I need to add to satisfy WP:N, in your estimation? Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd say you misread my comment. I said we could write a proper article about the murder, but I still believe it is not notable. There's no hard number of sources to satisfy WP:N, as I'm sure you're aware. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Coatrack is nothing more than a controversial essay, as the template on the top of the page states: "Heed (the essay) or not at your own discretion." travb (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's nice. Even if the essay did not exist, it would not invalidate my opinion. The article, as written, is not about Mr. Wone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not rename - Enough of this political correct nonsense on Wikipedia, to silence the violent crimes of rape and murder, committed by homosexuals against innocent heterosexuals. Enough is enough. Caden S (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, what? Are you really trying to suggest that this is some sort of plot? I never even heard of any of these people before I made this nomination, and how was I in any way supposed to know, from reading this article, that Wone was heterosexual? Way to assume good faith. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Subject is clearly notable. If Murder of Robert Eric Wone is the preferred title or not, that is a separate issue to this AfD. But this subject (both the murder and the victim) is demonstrably notable as per the large amount of media coverage and the scholarships, fellowships, and other memorials since named for him. That the subject was not notable before the murder is irrelevant, he is clearly notable now. -kotra (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Addendum: if there are BLP violations in this article, they should certainly be challenged and removed as such. But BLP is only a reason to delete an article if there is nothing worth salvaging after the content that violates BLP is removed. I don't see that being the case in this article. -kotra (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have filed a Wikiquette alert against your mentee, CadenS, due to the above comments and the continual such comments on his Talk page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned this here, but thanks for letting me know. Also, he is my adoptee, not my mentee. -kotra (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; It is impossible to have a BLP violation with respect to the subject, though it is still necessary to follow NPOV and Verifiability from Reliable sources. The case is notable, and widely reported, so an article is justified. In some such cases we have dealt with the suspects names by finding wording that will not not include the names in the articles, though this does yield some degree of awkwardness. An affidavit from an official source is not necessarily a document of such reliability that it can be used to justify the names. I may be viewing this too rigidly tho, as the WSJ printed the names. Butthere is no possible reason given the WSJ and the ABA articles to not have one in WP. DGG (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never claimed that the BLP violation refers to the murder victim, but it most certainly does apply to the people that the article bends over backwards to try to make people believe murdered him. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment How does the article do this? Is it giving undue weight to any of the RS used to construct the article? Fact is, there's no really good way to write an article about this murder that doesn't lead an intelligent reader to wonder if the housemates were more involved than they claim. If that is an artifact of how the article is written, then it should absolutely be changed. However, if such suspicion is inevitable, given the bare, RS'ed facts of the events, then that is certainly not a fault of the article, and it would be inappropriate to hold it against them. I've tried to include criticisms of police and prosecutorial procedure to provide as much balance as possible. If you think more is needed, feel free to add it. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Supposedly the article is about Robert Wone when actually it's about the criminal charges against the accused. Robert Wone himself may be notable but now his bio is weighted down with all manner of the murder. Are the charges or investigation or lawsuit notable? Has this influenced some major movement besides a quick effort on Wikipedia to scarlet letter the gay roommates - seemingly because they are gay.[1] All that is problematic but I think going waaay into innuendo about their involvement is certainly breaching BLP as might be discussing the family's lawsuit. With some perspective, maybe after the investigation and lawsuit(s) are resolved this could be seen for what could be an interesting article but I'm not even sure about what at this point. When we have an article it quickly becomes the top search item on Google - we have to sometimes err conservatively when publishing negative information about living people - what we write here has real world consequences. The tone of this debate also suggests a wp:coatrack in process to suggest that three gay men murdered a strait guy. Wikipedia is not the place for this. -- Banjeboi 08:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you would vote for deletion Benji. You've shown time after time how your biased POV supports your agenda. You were after all successfully topic banned remember? Not to mention you caused serious POV issues, on both the Jesse Dirkhising article as well as on the E.O. Green School shooting page, pushing your biased views. You clearly can't keep your POV in check. You even filed a bogus ANI on me and another editor in an attempt to have me blocked because you didn't like the fact that I exposed you misrepresenting several of the sources used. Caden S (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments reflect on your editing and are wholly inappropriate here. Please desist from bad-faith accusations and stick to discussing the content rather than contributors. -- Banjeboi 09:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise User talk:CadenS to desist in this line of attack as being uncivil, unproductive and a red herring to this debate. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not actually an encyclopaedia article about the (non-notable) Wone, it's a news story with blow-by-blow commentary from the tabloids thrown in. Wikinews is the place for this. The case is not itself notable, single murders are, sadly, a daily occurrence - all get some passing mention in the press, but few have any lasting significance. It does not look as if this will be one of those, but if it is then we can come back when there is proper review discussion in weighty publications, rather than just headlines in the daily papers. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikinews is for original reporting. There is no original reporting in this article; every fact is sourced to an appropriately reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable for one event. NonvocalScream (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per ONE EVENT. Not notable in life. There may be a case for an article on a murder case, because of its apparent newsworthiness to tabloids. However, WP is not the news, and the bio is certainly not a worthy one for WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:BLP1E does not apply to this for two reasons: 1. it's about living people, and 2. the subject has not remained a "low-profile individual" after the event. Also, WP:BIO says nothing about a person having to be notable in life. Sometimes, the circumstances of an individual's death make the individual notable. -kotra (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep;if press is still talking about it 2 years later of course it's notable. Though a merge might be better. Is there a compromise here to keep everyone happy?Mccready (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My sole concern is over the apparent attempt in this article to accuse the three people of murder. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a content dispute, not a reason for deleting the entire article. -kotra (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability for one event. Tragic as this fellows murder may be.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question in what way is WP:BLP1E applicable to murder victim Robert Eric Wone that it is not to (presuming she was murdered) Natalee Holloway, JonBenét Ramsey, and/or Laci Peterson? And don't give me WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'd really like a substantive answer. All four cases involved murder victims that were non-notable before the murder, although Wone was more notable than any of the others (with the possible exception of Ramsey). All four have received nationwide press coverage. If it's just a matter of demonstrating that it's been covered in more non-Washington news media, anyone can do that with Google and a few minutes of effort. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ONE EVENT says that if the individual remains "low-profile" then no encyclopedic article can be sustained. Mr. Wone, in death, has not remained low-profile, as his murder remains unsolved with many inconsistencies, there is significant media activity covering both those indicted, the prosecutors, and the notable people such as Attorney General nominee Eric Holder who are involved. If any renaming is done, I prefer Robert Wone murder as the name of the victim is the thing folks are most likely to search on. I agree that having "gay" in the lede was inappropriate and unnecessary. Scarykitty (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; This is definitely a notable subject. Three people have already been charged with the crime of obstruction, and this matter has been covered extensively in the media (except for Nancy Grace, who only covers dead young white girls). Some of the people seeking deletion seem to be trying to save the reputations of the three accused men, whose names have already been made public over and over again in news articles and Washington, DC area news shows. Joshellin (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep article has 19 good reliable sources demonstrating a durability of notability, which eliminates ONEEVENT considerations. ThuranX (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now Nothing notable about a scrapbook collection of tabloid clippings speculating about an open murder case that will lose interest when and if it is eventually solved. (I had to look up what a "cadaver dog" means.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please identify a single tabloid cited in the article. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Ohconfucius who pointed out above that ONE EVENT most definitely applies here. Without demeaning the man's life, he's not notable in life. Who was he? What notable thing did he do while alive? As Ohconfucius points out, WikiPedia is not the news, and the bio - being that it's non-notable - is certainly not a worthy one for WikiPedia. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 01:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not to sound like a broken record, but WP:BLP1E/ONE EVENT does not apply to this article because 1. it's not about a living person, and 2. the subject has not remained a "low-profile individual" after the event. There is nothing in the policies or guidelines that says a person's notability has to have been achieved in life. Sometimes, the circumstances of an individual's death make the individual notable. Examples are given by Bachcell and Jclemens above. -kotra (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BLP concerns do not have to apply to just Robert Wone, but to the three people you bunch are trying to accuse of murder. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 07:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • BLP1E is about the subject of a Wikipedia entry. Robert Wone is the subject of this Wikipedia entry. Therefore, I assumed BLP1E was only being cited for Robert Wone. It certainly does not apply to people being mentioned in the article who aren't the subject of the article. That would fall under the broader BLP policy. Regardless, I take exception to being characterized as one of "you bunch" trying to accuse the defendants of murder. I never did such a thing. I do not have an opinion about the defendants, and even if I did, that would be a content dispute, separate from the notability of the article's subject. If you think there are BLP violations in the article, I encourage you to address them, but an entire article does not get deleted because some of its content violates policy. We should use a scalpel, not a hacksaw. -kotra (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin per this edit, User:NurseryRhyme seems to have retired. It is appropriate, then, that his !vote be disregarded. See this ANI thread for context. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we disregard the !votes of retired users? I thought their comments would have the same worth as currently active users. I may be mistaken, though. -kotra (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't rightly know, actually. As nominator, however, I would consider his retirement a de facto withdrawal of the nomination. See my futher response to his argument below. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of arguments for keep (for closing admin)

To deal with TL;DR issues, this is a summary intended for the closing admin summarizing the arguments from a keep perspective. It is not intended to be a neutral summary of the arguments.

  • Robert Eric Wone is notable in death.
  • His death has been covered in dozens of reliable sources, many of which--including The Washington Post, The Advocate, The Wall Street Journal, Asian Week, and the ABA Journal--are clearly national publications.
  • His death has been covered in multiple non-D.C. area publications such as The New York Blade, San Francisco Examiner, and Windy City Times, albeit generally as reprints from sister, D.C.-area news outlets which carried the original stories.
  • Many of the news outlets that have covered his death have done so throughout the developments in the case to date over more than two years, including The Washington Post, The Washington Blade, The Washington Examiner, and The Washington City Paper.
  • Nothing in WP:GNG or WP:BIO requires Wone to have been notable in life. Even so, his life prior to his death has received some coverage, including in college papers, a New York Times wedding announcement, and the websites of organizations with which he was affiliated.
  • Anything in the article having to do with the inclusion of the names of those accused of crimes in relation to Wone's death is a content dispute, and not basis for deletion. As I compose this, there are zero tags placed on the article asking for improvements in NPOV, sourcing, citation, or the like.
  • BLP1E does not apply to this article. In addition to the coverage of Wone's death, there is separate media coverage of the one-year press conference held by the family, the arrest of the first housemate in Florida, the arrests of the other two housemates, the subsequent charges against all three, and multiple separate memorial/scholarships set up in Wone's name after his death. That is not one event, that is one topic, which has been arrived at by following WP:BLP1E's advice to "Cover the event, not the person."
  • Those arguing against deletion have made arguments not made on the basis of the article's contents:
  • JzG, Ohconfucious, and Cuddlyable3 have made references to "tabloids". None of the sources in this article is a tabloid; the criticism is inapplicable. While the details of the crime may seem tabloidesque, a review of the sources will show high quality sources throughout.
  • NurseryRhyme has incivilly argued that this article disparages "the three people you bunch are trying to accuse of murder". Again, that is a content dispute and not cause for deletion.
  • HandThatFeeds argues that undue weight and coatracking are issues in this article. That, too, is a content issue and not cause for deletion.

Thus, since so many incorrect and inapplicable arguments have been raised by those favoring this article's deletion, a rough consensus should exclude those inappropriate rationales, rather than merely counting noses. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Kept, Move to Murder of Robert Eric Wone per WP:ONEEVENT. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or move to Murder of Robert Eric Wone if this well sourced article can be deleted, practically any article can be. Ridiculous nomination. How can the nominator say he still isn't notable? I just don't understand some editors. travb (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Travb makes a very good point about the claims the article should be deleted on coatrack grounds. As he or she points out coatrack is merely an essay -- not an official wikidocument. The essay does raise some interesting points -- points that, in my experience, are universally ignored by those who call upon its (non-existent) authority. The essay does not recommend deletion as the solution for a concern over one of the issues it addresses. It recommends deletion be a last resort when attempts to reach consensus through civil discussion fail. Talk:Robert Eric Wone shows no one brought up coatrack prior to this {{afd}}, which I think makes claiming the authority of coatrack for deletion highly questionable. As I wrote above, essay does raise interesting points. But, in my experience in other {{afd}}s I find those who argue for deletion, based on its authority, have not proven willing or able to return to the essay and specificly cite the passages from the essay they think the article lapses from. This disappoints me. The essay lists close to a dozen different sections, each devoted to a different type of argument the author thinks is an example of the use of an article to discuss issues that are off-topic. It seems to me that anyone who is serious about their concerns should be able to be specific, and say something like: "I think the advice in the coatrack essay is worthwhile here. Specifically, the space devoted to issue XYZ is an example of what the author of the coatrack essay called "Wongo juice", because..." Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- most of the concerns raised by those who argue for deletion are not grounds for deletion. If valid those concerns are merely arguments the article should be revised. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would appreciate if those who argue for deletion, because much of the article is about the murder, not the individual, would address the suggestion raised by others that the article be renamed Murder of Robert Eric Wone. Presumably if it were renamed Murder of Robert Eric Wone then discussions of the murder would clearly be on-topic. Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Lots of good WP:RS establish that this topic is remarkable, and worthy of coverage here. How many murders are there in the USA in a single year? 20K, 80K 200K? I dunno. Somewhere in that range. We don't try to have articles about all of those murders. We couldn't, even if someone wanted to, because insufficient WP:RS would exist for the bulk of them. Most of the remainder would not merit coverage here, because they were open and shut cases -- there was nothing remarkable about them, because the US justice system functioned as designed. So, instead of covering 20K murders per year we only cover those that have a remarkable controversy. Is it possible to cover the topic of Robert Eric Wone, and his murder, using the sources found so far, while strictly complying with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:VER and WP:BLP? I don't think there is any question that this is possible. If the article is kept, and participants here think contributions are creeping in that violate policy, they should feel free to take them out. It they think a clique of contributors who are not committed to complying with the wikipedia's policies are conspiring to insert material that does not comply with policy, they can ask for protection, third party review, etc. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments by Jclemens, Bachcell, Travb, Geo Swan, and others. Does not violate the one event guidelines and clearly has more than sufficient RS on the murder and aftermath, including from the legal community, relating to Holder nomination, and from the national press (including The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal) to more than satisfy notability. Any other content issues, including BLP issues against those accused, should be handled through normal editing and discussion. Renaming is also an editing process, not a reason to go to AfD. The only intellectually valid reason to delete is if the subject is intrinsically non notable. Anything else can be fixed and verified with work and research, and should be, per WP:DELETE. — Becksguy (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

  • Delete The person does not seem to be notable. The crime and its investigation might be worth an article. Borock (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please articulate which notability guideline you're referencing and how you believe Wone fails to meet it. Note specifically that there is no particular cutoff at death for sourcing about a person. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The event was notable. The sheer number of sources in the article makes that unquestionable. The question is whether or not it should be covered as an article under the man, or under the event. Personally, I'd go with a rename to cover the event, but that's just me. Either way, I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Eric_Wone&oldid=1144767187"