Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California v. Murray


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

California v. Murray

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously, the article on Conrad Murray himself was redirected away to this page and Conrad Murray again exists pending Articles for deletion/Conrad Robert Murray (I've since swapped the pages so the history is with the regular name), I'm not seeing the indication that this trial was actually a notable trial. It was only notable due to its inherited connection with both Death of Michael Jackson and now with the Murray article and I don't think it's more than just a giant unsourced BLP nightmare about the various living people in the case (attorneys, witnesses, Murray). Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Of course it was a notable trial, it received a lot of publicity at the time. I don't think being a BLP nightmare is valid grounds for deletion.  Allegedly unsourced content should be considered on its merits.  Maybe some of the relevant articles could be merged, but that's a different suggestion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - per great sourcing, case that got national and plenty of international attention. And to try to twist it into something like "the trial is only notable because the "victim" was Michael Jackson", then you are really POV pushing in a weird way.BabbaQ (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - the sources cited in the article substantiate the notability of this case per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination on 14 June references an AfD closed on 1 May as "pending".  Nomination stipulates that there are multiple redirect targets, which means that there is no case for a notability deletion.  BLP would be a reason for deletion, but no evidence of a problem is provided, and it appears that the nom allows that any BLP problem can be fixed.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2016 (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.