Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl Kenneth Shriner


 * 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   no consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Earl Kenneth Shriner

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete Switch to KEEP per PanchS save. well done notable for but one heinous crime and suspected of others.  Dloh  cierekim  01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PERPETRATOR. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep — I rewrote the article as a short but clean stub using reliable secondary sources. According to this Spokesman Review article, "the facts of the Shriner case were compelling enough to trigger a statewide paroxysm of outrage" and "Meanwhile the Legislature, pprovoked by public outrage based largely on the Shriner case, is well on the way to enacting laws allowing longer incarceration of chronic sex offenders". this Seattle Post Intelligencer article. This Tacoma News Tribune article even states that "the furor over Shriner's attack led to the Community Protection Act of 1990" (see more about the Washington Community Protection act on Sexually violent predator). The coverage has been nation-wide, and as we're talking about an 1989 crime, Google News is not of much help. PanchoS (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: sorry to repeat Armbrust's argument, but even after the save attempt the criteria in WP:PERPETRATOR are not met. It is only a guideline, and there is always IAR as a way out, but as it stands it fails notability requirements. --Pgallert (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but now believe the coverage was significant enough to enough for general notability, and the case was important enough to have a far reaching impact on how we deal with monsters like the subject. I don't believe in "only a guideline". If it's a guideline, follow it when possible, but the impact tips me in favor of notability. "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. " In this case, as much as I wanted to delete this, it does.  Dloh  cierekim  15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * comment The article is vastly improved over what it looked like at the start.  Dloh  cierekim  15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I further expanded it and found a number of additional relevant citations, including in academical works, including citations in Canada and Germany. While the question could arise whether according to WP:CRIMINAL the criminal act might be notable rather than the perpetrator, this case clearly shows that it was his criminal career rather than the single crime that led to a public outrage of this scale, finally forcing legislature to enact more severe laws against so called sexually violent predators. PanchoS (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2010 (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.