Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dante Arthurs (3rd nomination)


 * 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. BJ Talk 06:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dante Arthurs
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A couple of years back there were unfounded internet rumours that this was one of the Jamie Bulger murderers. But he isn't. He's just another murderer. Not a mass murderer, just a murderer on a life sentence. If the crime is notable then we should have an article on that, not the individual, per WP:BLP1E (or I suppose in this case WP:BLP1E1UIR if we add the one unfounded internet rumour). Guy (Help!) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although well sourced, the article still fails to assert any notability. It'd probably be best to delete considering BLP. John Reaves 19:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, one-event murderer, BLP. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: One time murderer. Schuym1 (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Longhair\talk 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much more than WP:ONEEVENT. Aside from the actual murder there is the unusual decision to conduct a bench trial, the alleged 2003 assault that was not tested in court, the unfounded Bulger assertion. An article on Murder of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu just becomes distressing for her family. WWGB (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I claim some authorship of this article and the article of the victim (Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu), which has now been deleted. BLP is not a reason to delete an article on this guy. The article does not violate the rights of living people, and does not violate any rights of Sofia (if she has any). If it does, then editing this article is the solution, not deletion. This guy is not just a one-off murderer. In addition to what WWGB has said, his former house was burned to the ground following media hysteria. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notorious criminals are notable. Other factors that influence notability (or notoriety in this case): British police investigation in 2001, a previous incident in 2003 where the Perth police bungled the investigation, and the fact he caused public hysteria across Australia as people thought he might be a Bulger killer. Yes, he's an odious creature, but he passes the Wikipedia test.-- Lester  02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment These articles are always difficult to resolve by applying policy down the line. Certainly the subject meets the primary notability criterion in spades, but he is a living person and I have stood fairly strongly in the past about having articles for every rapist, murderer, armed robber etc bearing in mind BLP; criminals have rights too. It seems to come down to a "gut" decision, a mere opinion only, on the "notoriety" of the case. A High School teacher sleeping with his/her students; to be condemned but not notorious. Murdering a young child and the attendant blaze of publicity, well&nbsp,... it seems notorious enough for me, but I can't support it in policy. My opinion only. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WWGB, and the fact there have been 2 AfDs already which have tended towards keeping. No new evidence that the outcome has changed. Speedy close would be a better outcome. JRG (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's well sourced from various news sources, including national and international. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "keep" articles should be reformed, not deleted. This article is being repeatedly cited for deletion - it is obviously an abuse of process. Adding a delete tag is easier and more satisfying than suggesting improvements! Personally, I don't 'like' the article and I think it needs a lot of work. However, the general principle is clear, and with three deletion attempts already made, this article raises general 'procedural' issues which make it worth commenting. 90.62.150.248 (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC) (Martin Cohen)


 * 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.