Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:33, 29 April 2009

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 speedy keep. I don't see the value of two articles on the same subject, which is the main point of WP:ONEEVENT, but as there is strong consensus for keeping the Harry Roberts article, and some degree of escalating drama in this AfD, I withdraw my nomination and back away quietly! SilkTork * 21:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Harry Roberts (murderer)

Harry Roberts (murderer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested redirect. This standalone article should be deleted and redirected to Shepherd's_Bush_Murders#Harry_Roberts as per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E. SilkTork * 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think AfD is the appropriate choice for resolving this conflict. It's pretty clear that the article will not be deleted. The debate is really about the wisdom of merging the content into Shepherd's Bush Murders. But at the very least, the article will become a redirect and the content which, on the face of it, seems pretty well documented will not disappear but simply be transferred to the main article. As for the debate on the merge, I don't have a strong opinion but I'd like to note that, for instance, the section Trial and appeals is interesting in its own right but would be completely tangential in the Shepherd's Bush Murders article. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ikip makes a strong case below so if anyone's counting: Keep. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep Very notable person, well referenced article. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BIO1E are the same section of a Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. WP:ONEEVENT is one of the most misquoted rules in AfDs.
  Per WP:ONEEVENT:
  Where a person is mentioned by name in a Misplaced Pages article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them...If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate.
  This individual was the center of this event, a substantial part of this event. Ikip (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep AfD is not the place for content disputes this person is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. BigDunc 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for all the wrong reasons. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Definitely keep, as it meets notability requirements, and provides a lot of information on the subject.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is more extensive and better referenced than the section mentioned. If any of the information is included there, the original author needs to be credited, thus deleting the attached edit history would fly against policy. Try WP:MRFD. - Mgm| 10:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious strong keep Poorly researched nomination, clearly done in bad faith given this, this and this, where the nominator contemptuously merges content and amend a redirect and disambiguation page before this discussion has even begun! Perhaps the nominator should follow his own ignorant and condescending advice here and acquaint himself with the guidelines (sic) before commenting. Unlike the nominator who just claims he fails a guideline and a policy without explaining why he does, I can explain why he doesn't, as I have actually acquainted myself. First off WP:ONEEVENT. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Does Harry Roberts remain low profile? No, quite the opposite, he's one of Britain's most high profile prisoners with news coverage ongoing for the last nine years over his fight to be freed well after serving his thirty year recommended sentence. Amongst many other books, he appeared in a chapter of Killers: Britain's Deadliest Murderers Tell Their Stories by Kate Kray in 2002 telling his story (which seems to be a re-hash of the chapter from Lifers by the same author published in 1997), and there's over 50 pages of it. Hardly low profile is it? Just like this newspaper interview in 2004 obviously makes him low profile. All this news coverage is hardly low profile is it? So there's proof that he's not only covered in the context of a particular event, other aspects of his life have been covered by reliable sources and he isn't low profile, so how is a separate biography "unlikely to be warranted" when Harry Roberts is demonstrably high profile. "Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event" His recent coverage is based on his fight to be released as he's one of Britain's longest serving prisoners, so it doesn't give undue weight to the event. It is about events stemming from the original event, but not one event. In fact if the nominator had looked for book sources or read the interview linked above (amongst many other sources) he would have realised that the article can be expanded much more to cover the life of Roberts before, during, and after 1966 to make it a more well rounded biography. "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." It's definitely a significant event ("one of the most high-profile crimes of the 1960s") and Roberts had the most substantial role in it, as evidenced by the amount of information available about him compared to Witney and Duddy. "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." He's still receiving coverage over forty years after the event, that would seem to be pretty persistent to me and anyone else with a clue. Now for WP:BIO1E, which needs less refuting as it's largely a re-hash of WP:ONEEVENT anyway. "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified." See above mostly. Harry Roberts is not notable for just a single event, so he can't be covered for just one event. "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Did Harry Roberts have a large role in the event? Emphatically yes. "as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Are there reliable sources that devote significant attention to the indivudual's role? Emphatically yes. Harry Roberts is notable for his participation in the original event, him being Britain's most wanted man and on the run for three months, his place in popular culture, him being one of Britain's longest serving prisoners and for his ongoing fight to be released from prison. To say he's only notable for one event is just incorrect, and his coverage in reliable sources over forty years after the event show that to be the case. When this article is expanded to cover Roberts early life, the manhunt and his ongoing fight to be released it will be bigger than the article about the event itself, so would be a prime candidate for forking back out to a separate article anyway! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, idiotic nomination by an illinformal/POV (delete as applicible) editor.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Best not to attack the editor per WP:NPA. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. like I give even this slightest shit what you say!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can we speak in English please? As per WP:DON'TSPEAKINCODE,SPEAKINENGLISH! Oh, my opinion - Obvious, Strong Speedy Keep - this is a very notable person, so they deserve a Wiki article! Simple. I also agree with the comments made above, and above that, about the editor/their intentions. Btline (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2009 (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.