Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwight Whorley


 * 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   redirect to Lolicon. Seems to be a consensus for this, and it'll help make the proposed split mentioned by Graymornings a little easier to manage. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dwight Whorley

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not meet our inclusion criteria with respect to notability, as described in WP:BIO. Specifically, Dwight Whorley as a person does not appear to have had any coverage in reliable third party sources apart from media coverage related to the crimes he has been convicted for.

Accordingly, pursuant to our policy about the biograpies of living persons (WP:BLP), specifically its subsections WP:NPF and WP:BLP1E, any mention of his case (if any) should be a part of the article PROTECT Act of 2003, which is about the act under which he was convicted and the question of whose constitutionality seems to be the matter of interest in the whole story.

I have attempted to redirect the article accordingly; this has been reverted twice. I think deletion (and subsequent redirection) is now appropriate.  Sandstein  23:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I am writing a lengthy deletion rationale is that the article is linked to from Slashdot, which means we might have many new people reading this.  Sandstein  23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lolicon, where he's mentioned. That section contains all relevant info about Whorley - he's not remarkable enough to merit his own article.  Graymornings (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect per graymornings. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 01:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect: per Greymornings. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Redirect, as per nom. being jailed for child sex offences doesn't make someone notable in their own right. NZ forever (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You CANNOT both delete and redirect. It's either one or the other. A deletion makes a redirect impossible. You can REPLACE the content with a redirect though. That's what I think we should do if this isn't deemed notable enough. I think, if this person deserves an article, rather than naming it after Dwight Whorley, it should be named after the case, like Court v. Whorley or whatever the technical name of American cases would be (similar to how we have R v. Sharpe). In that case, you can redirect the name to the court case, because the court case is what is notable moreso than the person. Whorley is one of many people mentioned in the US section of the lolicon legality description, those other cases are just as similarly notable, including the one where PROTECT is being disputed by the CBLDF, which is still ongoing. Tyciol (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to the case, per Tyciol. A major test case. DGG (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. While the subject of the article is not notable per WP:BLP1E, the broader picture suggests that we keep the article. The incident culminated in a test case of US law which is notable. The article needs to be renamed and rewritten from this new perspective, but there is no reason to delete the article. Trusilver  17:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just going to suggest that the article be broadened into a general article about the legal issues surrounding lolicon when I found that one had already been proposed. Could we redirect to the new article and include the info in a Court v. Whorley section?  Graymornings (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2009 (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.