Talk:Ben Teague

News
Please keep in mind WP:NOT. Tim Ross  (talk)  18:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. News articles don't usually publish the books, go into early life, etc.  This article is formatted in the encyclopedic manner outlined on WP:Biography for biographical content on WP.SriMesh |  talk  18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect or stand alone discussion
One Event. It has been ascertained that the articles for the victims should be a re-direct to George Zinkhan as per people notable for one event means that the victims do not warrant an article in their own right. I tried to add a "Casualties" section to George Zinkhan, and this section was also deleted. I feel that the victims are professional people who probably warranted their own page in the first place before the event, and as the articles are only minutes old and already longer than a typical section, they should probably not be sections of another article. See what is out there, they all graduated from University and must have done something. :-) SriMesh | talk  18:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this guy is completely non-notable outside of the circumstances of his death, clearly WP:BLP1E and a redirect is appropriate. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect assumes that Zinkham is the murderer, and not the alleged murderer.  In North America folks usually are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the only link is the crime. If a reader wanted to read an encyclopedia article about Ben Teague why in the world would they want to instead read about Zinkham and his bio???  Zinkham and Teague are not the same bio.  If Teague is not notable then delete don't redirect that is goofy.  It would make sense if something wsere about Teague on an incident article, or in the section about the incident on Zinkham which would at least have some Teague bio in it, but there is no even partial bio on the Zinkham page about Teague.SriMesh |  talk  21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or if my teacher wanted a report done on Teague what good is a redirect to Zinkham?SriMesh | talk  21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK revise that to "alleged circumstances of his death". – ukexpat (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of notability, it is rather unlikely that any teacher would ask for a report on Teague. Remember that notability is not a value judgement. Both very good and very bad persons can be notable or non-notable. There is no reason either to have a separate article on the incident, all info is already in the Zinkham article, so that would just be double. And redirecting Teague to Zinkham is not goofy or that Zinkham is guilty: he is indeed presumed innocent until proven otherwise and WP's BLP guideline imposes the same policy on us. (That's why I removed the category "American murderers" from that article). The fact remains that the only reason that we are talking about Teague here is because of Zinkham, so that's the most logical redirect. Again, that's not a value judgment or anything like that, it just means that that is the place where the information relating to the event that Teague was so tragically involved in can be found. --Crusio (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, well put. – ukexpat (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)