Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Conley


 * 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   delete. There is a strong consensus that the subject is not suitable for a standalone article, and there is no consensus at best for the suggested merge. T. Canens (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Conley

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:PERP. I don't see him meeting any of the 3 PERP criteria. simply being a murderer at 18 years old is not enough for a Wikipedia article. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Well, simply because I created the article and ofcourse I think that the person reaches notability. His case has been written about and reported about way beyond his Rising Sun hometown. He is also notable in my opinion because of his very young age. Hmm.. perhaps a redirect to the Dexter article part where his case is described in short. But then it needs an update, perhaps a few lines from this article. But however, I still believe he is notable beyond a one time event. Now I guess other users can decide. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And im not totally comfortable with the fact that Libstar put this article up for Afd, as this user and myself has had quite a history on the Linda Norgrove Afd during the last week that by the way reached Keep status earlier today. (No offence just telling my point of view Libstar).--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: It does bring up over a million google hits, and MSNBC is reporting it . The potential for notoriety is there. It's on CBS News as "The Dexter Killer"  -- that may be what makes this particularly noteworthy, if it's presented as being noteworthy for that reason. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And it is mentioned in the article as one of the reasons for the crime itself. And I do agree with you AJ.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agreeing with you on the number of hits on Google. Its a high number for an "american murderer", usually for example an Florida murderer sentenced even to death get mostly coverage from Floridian newspapers and media.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * see WP:GOOGLEHITS. the questions here for a criminal article is not about covearge for the crime, under WP:PERP they must demonstrate more than this. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself - For me atleast that he was so obsessed with the series Dexter then trying to copy his murder is a special case. And the media referring to that is making him notable beyond the crime itself. Also that is one of the reasons to why this particular murderer story has reached beyond his Rising Sun home town and even outside the US itself. So I do actually believe he passes WP:PERP.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He does in fact also passes 3.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Dexter (TV series). I'm not convinced that there is enough to pass WP:PERP, WP:EVENT, or WP:NOTNEWS: "Troubled boy obsessed with Dexter kills his brother, pleads guilty, and is sentenced to life imprisonment." The section regarding "reactions" shows how little of substance there is to this story. This story and the article on Dexter would be better served if they were tied together. Location (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge whatever's not already in Dexter (TV series) and redirect. I'm in agreement with User:Location, there's just not much else to this story to merit a separate biographical, and the Reactions section struck me as inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per OlEnglish. VQuakr (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * do not merge at least to the suggested article. this would imply a judgment that the show was actually responsible for the killing, which seems a judgment we should not be making.   DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Murders are, and should be, newsworthy, and they will get covered in newspapers, but more than this is required to pass the WP:NOTNEWS bar. Most murders are not encyclopedia material, and I cannot see this one as an exception. Life in prison for murder is a routine sentence, the age of the defendant (18) is low but not exceptionally low, and a psychological obsession as a motive is not unusual either. The "reactions to the sentence" section, with quotations from the judge, prosecutor, and defence attorney, is typical for newspaper coverage, but not typical of encyclopedias. In total, the event does not have enough impact, the coverage is not lasting or deep enough, to pass the WP:EVENT standards. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and strongly endorse DGG's admonition not to merge. I feel that would be like merging Barry Loukaitis with the Stephen King article. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The content is already there. I think we could salvage some of this content that's not already there, just not the reactions section.. -- &oelig; &trade; 13:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Aren't there usually a rain of deletes on these single-murder people?--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * yes. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment:I still think this person deserves his own article. As Milowent says usually with "non-notable" cases their is a rain of delete sayers. But here its not. A merge of this article would not be productive either. I suggest that we let this article "grow" for a while and the reasses the situation. Its a keeper.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Qouting another user here I feel that would be like merging Barry Loukaitis with the Stephen King article. Just that I suggest instead of deleting to keep the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject doesn't meet WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT and I agree with DGG that merging would not be appropriate. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the number of Google hits is a fake argument. The actual  number is About 16,200 results (0.12 seconds)--Kudpung (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. as per RonRitzman, and do not  delete, as per DGG.--Kudpung (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you meant do not redirect? LibStar (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2010 (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.