Talk:Glenn Lee Benner II

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Glenn Lee Benner II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823150419/http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prosecuting/pubs/ann_rpt_capital_crimes2005.pdf to http://www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prosecuting/pubs/ann_rpt_capital_crimes2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Article issues

 * Statistics:


 * 6th murderer executed in U.S. in 2006
 * 10th murderer executed in U.S. since 1976
 * 1st murderer executed in Ohio in 2006
 * 20th murderer executed in Ohio since 1976
 * This subject was a criminal, referred to as "A serial rapist and murderer", that was executed. He brutally murdered Trina Bowser (age 21) and Cynthia Sedgwick (age 26). It wasn't just two murders. The subject committed more than one rape and at least one victim was sodomized. The subject received three prizes for his crimes, a "final meal", a death sentence, and a five sentence stubby article on Wikipedia, spread out apparently in some attempt to make it look better. There is also mention in other articles.
 * The WP:notability of the subject, by policies and guidelines, would extend to more than the criminal acts or being the "first" person in a state put to death within a certain time-frame. The article was created in 2006 and has been on Wikipedia for around 11 years. It survived a prod with the editor stating: "Given that this has been live for 9 years with multiple editors, I'm declining that as a number of editors have implicitly considered him notable. Feel free to AFD if you feel it appropriate.".
 * A problem is that existence on Wikipedia can be simply because of silence. There have been 43 edits by 28 editors on this article and apparently not one has determined that WP:Citing sources was important enough, even on an autobiography, to merit consideration. It might be because these are only content guidelines. The same can be stated for Notability, Notability (people), Manual of Style/Biographies, and Identifying reliable sources. The reasons for inclusion might be an exception because "guidelines are considered ''"...a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense when applying a "best judgement", and occasional exceptions may apply.".
 * Guidelines, are "...sets of best practices (using "best judgments") of existing policies.", supported by consensus. "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." and not simply a "head count". The level of consensus can be local or project-wide but can not over-ride broad community consensus.


 * Conclusion: What does all the above mean? Source and citations. Most of the time a pocket consensus suffices because usually if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On occasion something is allowed to remain, for any number of reasons, even if there are severe policy or guideline issues. One such example of related policy is verification. The information page Citing sources and the content guideline Inline citation covers this also. Otr500 (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Articles for deletion/Glenn Lee Benner II is thataways. If I'd accepted the prod request on this I'd have quite rightly been hauled off for desysopping; the proposed deletion process is for uncontroversial deletions, and an article which has existed unchallenged for a decade is never going to fall into that category. &#8209; Iridescent 11:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * --LOL don't get hauled off or desysopped. You did state: "Feel free to AFD if you feel it appropriate.". I was not aware that any admin (sysop etc.) had to "take action" on a prod. From what I understand if a prod is simply not contested by "any" editor it can be deleted after 7 days. What seems apparent to me is that a prod seems to be pretty much worthless. Some editor can submit a well reasoned prod on a totally junk article, and the creator (or anyone) can just contest it. Seems like it is only useful if the creator is not around, has some miraculous change of heart, or maybe didn't check "watch this page". I guess I will have to add that admins or sysops being forced to contest (or accept) a prod as another reason. Learn something every day.
 * I consider myself an inclusionist, and certainly not just some victims rights editor, so if an article is "worthy" of space then it should be on Wikipedia. There does seem to be some consensus in the guidelines that unless there is an exception of notability we should cover the victim and not the criminal. All these years without a single citation means there is certainly reason to question notability. Anyway, I am actually doing VERY long needed maintenance, have had at least one article improved, and at some point might look at AFD's. It seems to me that WP:OTHER is not a good reason to have an uncited article, or large group of them just to complete some list (maybe a reason to look at the "other"), WP:IGNORE is only applicable if it improves Wikipedia and still subject to consensus. Stability is about manual of style and not length of time on Wikipedia and retention is about keeping editors. Sorry, I was looking around trying to find some acceptable reasoning to keep a long term dictionary entry article to counter the "victim" guideline or some acceptable exception to WP:V. Unless someone does take interest, and policies and guidelines are not continually ignored, then I am inclined to think that no matter how long an article has been on Wikipedia (especially an uncited 5 sentence stubby stub) consensus can change. I also think other policies and guidelines have to be considered for inclusion regardless if 28 editors have chosen to ignore them. Either that or we need to trash WP:OR ("...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.") and possibly parts of the five pillars. Thanks for your comments. Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)