Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Blue


 * 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. Policy based consensus is clear here. Secret account 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Carl Blue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

nn per WP:ONEEVENT, we don't need to eulogize everyone executed by every country at all times. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no special circumstances in this case. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately, murderers are thirteen to a dozen and there's nothing that makes this one stand out. No lasting encyclopedic value. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment "Murderers are thirteen to a dozen"?  Where do you live?  While murder happens more frequently than we would like, it still is a relatively infrequent crime.  When the murder, murderer, and victim are NOTABLE enough to CONSISTENTLY make the news, they should be notable enough to stay.  The fact is notability is treated subjectively here anyway.  Many contestants of Survivor (and add many other reality TV shows), despite not doing much else in the entertainment industry have articles, while Teck Holmes is DENIED an article despite a laundry list of acting, musicial, and production/writing credits to his name.  Again, just sayin'  76.105.101.68 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite the glib attitude of the deletion enthusiasts, I would think that Blue's victims and family/friends of the latter might have a somewhat different attitude. Anyone who is concerned about supposedly civilized countries executing individuals would find a catalog of these of interest.--Sean O'Brian (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is about a single murderer, it's not a catalog, and WP is not a directory. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment #2 O'Brian watch it with the personal comments. I've clearly stated my reasons for this AfD, you have no reason to ascribe motive to me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment #3 Kintetsubuffalo forgot to add in the bit he sent me: "As someone who's made many thousands more edits than your dozen in your six years here, I know what I am doing. I've clearly stated my reasons for this AfD, you have no reason to ascribe motive to me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * " My posting ascribed no motive nor did it single anyone out. The main reason I don't do more edits are people who treat others with disrespect, particularly those do so on the predication that they are superior to others due to the *quantity* of their edits. Still not ascribing motive; simply describing behavior.Sean O&#39;Brian (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment #3.1 O'Brian forgot to add that when he does edit, he writes things like "Despite the glib attitude of the deletion enthusiasts", which is in fact treating others with disrespect he was not first subjected to.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Calm down people. The "glib comment" wa posted directly below my own !vote and I don't feel personally attacked. And whatever beef you two may have with each other, please fight that out elsewhere, this is not the place for it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Wikipedia has almost 5 million articles - on the English version - so I say this one stays. 1779Days (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please base your !vote on policy, otherwise it likely will be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. WP is not a catalog. Nothing of encyclopedic note with this particular murderer. Mayumashu (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:PERPETRATOR. One of literally hundreds of murderers executed by Texas. RS coverage is strictly routine. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete; Non-notable murderer while an argument could be made that anyone's crimes that are so heinous that an execution is ordered and carried out merits note, but alas, the death penalty is not reserved only for such special cases given the pure numbers executed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a notable executed murderer. If he is deleted, what makes other murderers notable?  Someday, somebody will read information on him for a book report :-D.  Seriously though, he is a notable individual, albeit for heinous circumstances, but he is high profile, and executions are NOT a dime-a-dozen as somebody else stated.  There is a difference between a bad check writer, misdemeanant thief, and a murderer sentenced to DEATH!  We do not have a thousand such articles.  The death penalty is reserved only for the most HEINOUS of murders (or in Florida for the worst rapes of children under twelve).  Nobody is being sentenced to the electric chair for jaywalking or a fist fight.  Just sayin'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.101.68 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:PERPETRATOR. Texas executions have attained a sort of banality. Even if the murder is unspeakably brutal, it is not notable for that alone. Neither the perpetrator not the victim is otherwise notable, and there is no weird behavior that could result in him being a subject of pop culture. There is no significant question of the legal process leading to the execution. There is nothing to learn from his case. I suggested that one article on an executed murderer be kept because the condemned suggested that instead of being subjected to lethal injection that his body parts be harvested. They couldn't, so the issue became moot in his case -- but such could be part of a debate and have educational value. Wikipedia is clearly not intended to give perverse recognition to people who do horrific acts. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of individuals executed in Texas, 2010–, not notable enough for separate article but valid search term. GiantSnowman 10:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - His crime was not notable or notorious enough to deserve a separate article. --Zerbey (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy attempted to heinously kill two people at one throw of gasoline (an act that I will color as literally torture/murder) - that we are lucky enough that he only succeded in killing one person seems to reward him by not ascribing enough notarity--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that you totally misunderstand the concept of notability as used on WP. That has nothing to do with good/bad/deserving/heinous/whatever. Please read the linked guideline in the previous sentence. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * as someone said above all murders probably fail WP:NOTABILITY - thus I ask you does this one too Lee Harvey Oswald?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PERPETRATOR "the execution of the crime is unusual" - seting fire to two people sounds fairly unusual to me--68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not really. It's a rather frequent "weapon" in India to kill wives/daughters in law (often because the dowry was too low). And some murders are indeed obviously notable, because they generate lasting interest (like the murders of JFK, John Lennon, MLK, or Julius Caesar). Most murders, however, only generate some interest when they happen, perhaps a bit at sentencing, and then again a bit if there follows an execution. After that: zilch. That's all very much a one event thing without any lasting coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2013 (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.