Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Rockwell Williams


 * 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. Purely numerically, there are 4 keep votes and 7 delete votes (I have not discounted any, as they all at lest allude to a relevant policy). I have ignored any arguments pertaining to the coincidence of the school that the murderer attended which, in any case, would fail WP:NOTINHERITED. The delete votes are compelling, with WP:GNG, WP:PERP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP1E as the most relevant policies to support deletion. Some keep votes have asserted notability, or that the sources are sufficient; however, without reference to any specific source, these arguments were weak (especially considering accusations from delete votes that the sources were all either local coverage or only from the time of the event or trial). There is a weak consensus to delete; since this is a BLP, the result will be deletion. There may be scope to recreate the article at a later date, but only if the issues raised in this AfD are resolved (specifically, there would have to be long-lasting and/or non-local coverage in sources). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Brian Rockwell Williams

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Suspected perpetrator of a double murder with possible mental health issues. In any case Wikipedia is not news and the Brian Rockwell Williams is not notable in the sense of WP:PERP. Pichpich (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the nominator. Until proven guilty, this subject is really no more notable than any other murder suspect. -- WikHead (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I disagree. This was a very notable murder, as the victims included a prominent San Diego detective, as well as a top student athlete. It's even more notable now, as another former student of Westview High School, James Eagan Holmes, has committed a mass shooting killing a dozen people. There are plenty of entries for murderers on Wikipedia in which the case has yet to conclude. For instance, Jared Loughner, was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. I don't see what the difference is here. This entry is not made to look like news at all. It merely provides information on a notable incident. Please cite the provide the exact text of the policy in which you cite as the basis for this incident not being notable, and please provide an explanation detailing the way in which you believe this entry is made to look like news. Systematic1 (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the murder is indeed notable, the article should perhaps be about it, rather than a suspect who may or may not have been involved. -- WikHead (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, both are notable. The suspect for his relation to a high school that produced another well known murderer. The murder itself is notable because one of the victims was very notable (the mother was a prominent San Diego Police Detective).Systematic1 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The individual fails WP:PERP; the murder fails WP:EVENT, as well as the subsections WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and possibly WP:DIVERSE. The common link to a particular high school fails WP:NOTINHERITED and possibly WP:NOTNEWS; news factoids such as this are not sufficient for establishing notability. Location (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Are you just citing policies without even reading them?


 * You cited WP:PERP which says that, "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person" There is NOT an existing article that could do or incorporate available encyclopaedic material relating to that person.


 * Moving on "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:" The one that applies is "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role" This murder has received much news coverage ranging from LA Times, HuffPost, NBC, etc. Additionally, the motivation and execution of the crime were unusual, being suspected of slitting his own mother and sisters throat in addition to being suspected of stabbing them each multiple times, and one of the victems being pushed or falling off a second story balcony is UNUSUAL. Finally, the fact that his mother (one of the victems) was a prominent San Diego detective also contributes to a sense of the crime being unusual.


 * You also cited WP:EFFECT, I would argue that it has definitely had a lasting effect, as it is still being reported nationally many months after the murders occurred. Regardless, this section explicitly states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." As it relates to this incident, his trial has been postponed due to the fact that he was initially deemed unfit to stand trial, but now that he has a court date for October, 18, 2012, and the charges have been reinstated, it is likely that this event will once again attract lasting national attention. Additionally, this event is even more significant now that it has been uncovered that the suspect attended the same high school as the suspect in the 2012 Aurora shootings. In fact, it was recently mentioned in connection with the Aurora shootings on within the past few days on HuffPost (a nationally syndicated news group).


 * Additionally, WP:NPF says that "Wikipedia contains biographical material on people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources." No explanation needed.


 * You cited WP:GEOSCOPE, and again, this event has been widely reported on a national level indicating "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely..." Regardless, this policy also states, "By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." This event has certainly had a long-term impact in San Diego, where one of the victims was a prominent detective, and where the news coverage has been long-term and significant.


 * You cited WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE this entry contains multiple sources dated between July 2011 and July 2012, even at a time when there was little going on in the case itself. Clearly, that indicates in depth and persistent coverage.


 * You cited WP:DIVERSE, the entry contains at least 6 separate and unique sources. How is that not diverse?!


 * You cited WP:INHERITED, while I agree this link alone is not sufficient in establishing nobility, I am not claiming it does either (see above), I am simply stating that it is a contributing factor.


 * You cited WP:NOTNEWS Please, tell me, in what way is this article written from a news prospective? It makes no emotional arguments, it doesn't take sides, it includes current and up to date information, it's not a first hand news report on a breaking story, and it's not written in news style.


 * Instead of acting like delete happy robots and quoting irrelevant policies without actually making an attempt to point to something in the entry that policy violates, try to actually cite specific things in the entry that should be changed. I will make the appropriate changes myself.Systematic1 (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm gonna go with keep in this instance. My first gut feelings were to delete, but after reading the article and seeing the sources, its clear that WP:PERP now applies, although it may not have a week ago. The shooting in Colorado has made the relevance of this event more notable and news coverage has increased because of the school connection.-- JOJ Hutton  14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure how one can deny that the section "Double Murder" reads exactly like an AP wire story. But I really want to fight against the notion that this man is notable because he went to the same high school as another notable crazy person. While I'm sure News of the World would lead with a bold "Is this high school breeding murderers?" most sane observers would agree that this is a coincidence of so little significance that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in either the James Eagan Holmes article or the one on Rockwell. If someone is born on the same day as Charles Manson, should we mention it in an article? Of course not. Articles convey meaningful facts not trivia. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - What then would you propose as an acceptable title? Because in my opinion, an AP wire story would be much more sensationalized ex. "Man Slits Throats of Own Mother/Sister" The title simply describes the major noteworthy event for which this individual is primarily associated with, and it actually does it in a comparatively tasteful manor. Your Manson analogy is fallacious on two levels. First just because an individual was born on the same day as Manson does not indicate that they share any common traits or characteristics. However, in this case both individuals not only attended the same school, but they also are both alleged to be prolific murderers, and both will likely raise some type of insanity defense. Second, being born on the same day is nowhere near the equivalent of graduating from the same high school, which is restricted in scope geographically and intrinsically. Even then, as I wrote above, Brian Williams is notable for even more than just attending the same school as James Holmes, the circumstances surrounding his alleged crimes make him notable as well. So I would ask that anyone who continues to chime in here not just repeat this same overdone argument of the link between the schools being weak, but to comment on this entry as a whole.Systematic1 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Suppose you're hiring someone and he tells you he attended Westview High School, will that give you pause? If your daughter says 'Dad I'm dating this guy from Westview High School', will you buy her a gun? No, of course not. This coincidence is just one of these fluky events that is bound to be noticed in a world where everything is a Google search away. You're assigning meaning and importance to superficial chance. Pichpich (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - This isn't a forum. Your arguments are irrelevant to the issue under discussion. We are here to talk about the inclusion of this individual on Wikipedia, not to answer unrelated hypotheticals. Alas, you continue to miss the point. I am not assigning meaning and importance, after all, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to assign significance, but to present source accompanied facts. That is what I am doing. I simply recognize, coincidence or not, that it is noteworthy that two prolific alleged murders have emerged from the same high school. Individuals will be free to infer their own meaning and significance as they please. However, as I've stated continuously, there is more about the circumstances surrounding Brian Rockwell Williams' alleged crimes that make him noteworthy. Not one person has commented on the fact that his mother (victim) was a prominent San Diego detective.Systematic1 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article was added purely to breed Westview High School's reputation for producing murderers. It does not satisfy WP:N. &mdash;  P C  B  06:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Although Westview may indeed be developing that reputation, this entry was only created for the purpose of shedding light on a notable incident. Although it may be hard to swallow, please recognize that WP:NOTCENSORED, and thus merely contributing to a certain stigma surrounding Westview High School is not grounds for deletion. Also, since Williams' trial is now roughly two months away, please consider that the notability of this incident will certainly increase, and because of that we should adhere to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, and give this entry a chance to develop properly; after all, it was flagged for deletion just minutes after its creation. I would further suggest that many weighing in here are more concerned with protecting the prestige and status of Westview High School than they are with presenting this information according to Wikipedia policy. Finally, I have added several additional legitimate sources to the original article including Fox, CBS, etc. Systematic1 (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. No real opinion on whether the article should be kept, although I do tend to think articles on murders are deleted too readily on Wikipedia. However, I will make two points. First, I fail to see why this individual should be notable because he went to the same school as another murder suspect. So what? We do not do notability by association (very tenous association in this case, since they weren't related and there doesn't appear to be any evidence they were even friends) on Wikipedia. Second, one of his victims may have been well-known within the SDPD, but she was not famous or notable outside it. She appears to have been a typical hard-working, low-ranking, veteran police officer just like many thousands of others worldwide. Admirable, but not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Has only local coverage, wasn't considered notable enough for an article until it was discovered he attended the same high school as Holmes, not even convicted of the crime, does not appear to meet WP:BLPCRIME. 72Dino (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: I am sure some other Westview graduates have committed crimes too.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see this as notable. I searched Google news for double murder and this one is no different then thousands of others. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, your Google search method fails WP:HITS, and thus provides no rational basis for inclusion or deletion. Systematic1 (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Trial is still forthcoming, impossible to make an accurate assessment of notability until that point in time. 69.199.125.193 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no WP:WAITUNTILTHETRIAL guideline, that makes no difference.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, there is no WP:WAITUNTILTHETRIAL, but in his defense there is a WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, and it's pretty hard to argue that the trial will not have a significant impact on the notability of this entry. Furthermore, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, and since many people are making the claim that there is only "local coverage", WP:LOCALINT defines an entry as a local interest only if 100% of its sources are "local" sources. There are sources cited in this entry that are national in scope (ex. Huffington Post). Thus, according to wikipedia, it is not categorized as a local interest. Regardless, San Diego is a city of over 1 million people. So even significant "local coverage" is notable. There has also been much added to this article since it was AfD, and I suggest everyone review the additions.Systematic1 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to respond to every comment you know. I'm a strong inclusionist, if i thought it should be kept, I would make sure it was.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:32, 28 July 2012 (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.