Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony McKinney


 * 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. I'm reading this as a nomination withdrawn with a view to making the article a redirect to page about the incident. (non admin closure)''' Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Anthony McKinney

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

fails WP:BLP1E. The coverage only seems to be about issues tangentially associated to the validity of his conviction - a single issue - and the argument that "he has lots of google hits" is a bad one. Ironholds (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP Subject is notable for role in ongoing national news event, the attempt to subpoena student records relating to a death row case, as well as the ongoing controversy over possible wrongful convictions in the U.S. and especially in Illinois. Major stories in New York Times, LA times, ABC News, Chicago Tribune, etc. etc. Certain to keep cropping up as case wends through appeals and case, Bill Whittaker (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooh, brilliant. In that case, you wouldn't mind providing them? Something which would have been useful say, when you wrote the article. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, maturity is important in discussions like this, see Civility 1(d). The stub already mentiones McKinney's relevance to both journalism and legal precedence in DP cases, and there are already references to both the Trib and ABC articles.Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." - do you really think that two news articles (the minimum needed to establish basic notability) is enough to pass BLP1E in this situation? Particularly since they were written one day apart, which is hardly "persistent coverage". Ironholds (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * References added to demonstrate longevity of story. If you want more, let me know.Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Longevity of story, yes; so the story should have an article. "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved? It appears Ironholds is dropping his deletion request in favor of making Anthony McKinney a redirect to Anthony McKinney murder conviction (or whatever title he deems appropriate) with this article content included. I have no objections to this. Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not exactly; the story seems to be about the seizure of records, not the actual case. I'd suggest an article on either that or shoving it in say, the article on the school district. Ironholds (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Either is fine with me.Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool; you want to do the moving and rearranging? I'll try and find someone who knows how to close these things. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about Anthony McKinney murder conviction controversy or something else? Bill Whittaker (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That probably works better, yeah. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.