Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Curry


 * 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. Consensus seems to be that there because the only sources that exist that cover this man are of his crimes, the article fails WP:BLP1E. NW ( Talk ) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Curry

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I know the definition of "BLP1E" is disputed, but I believe this article in it's current form does fall under the term. The article covers nothing on this man other than one part of his life, how he got jailed for being a pedophile. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence was controversial and other examples in the category similarly focus on this part of someone's life. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. It seems to me the only notability (if that should even be the right word here to use) is for this one event. Im perplexed as to how even a merge is appropriate and where this could go as a redirect right now. Therefore I think deletion (In the pages current form) is appropriate as outlined above. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious (as an aside and not to take away from this) but is the article at Viggo Kristiansen from the same category notable? It seems he has done less and might be one example of a major BLP issue through similar focus on his crimes (with a lot less sources). -- can  dle &bull; wicke  12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked at that article and I think Kristiansen is even less notable than this guy; you're welcome to AfD him if you like. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep-The article is sourced and is indeed notable in that the guy was found guilty of 189 counts of indecent assault and sentenced to only 4 years. For WP:ONEEVENT, are you referring to the sentencing, or to the period during which he was assaulting these children?...there appears to be some lexical ambiguity in your statement. The article does need a bit work, but as it stands, it need not be nominated for deletion. Smallman12q (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, quoting BLP1E, it says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category." It seems (to me at this point) that this person's role is indeed substantial and since the names of those he abused are unknown he is very much the centre of this case. I had no idea who the Hinckley, Jr. guy was before I clicked but if the best example of this type of biography is someone who nearly killed someone but failed, well... I don't see how this serial abuser over three decades is any worse less suited for an article? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) To me I see this as one event that the trial and the period are one in the same, and as such I would belive the article follows to cover the person only in the context of this single event (But i agree this can have ambuigity to it). That is just my opinion of this paticular article. However I do concede under WP:PERP that the person narrowly does satisfy point 3 (But not 1 and 2 in my opinion at least). However thats if it has persistant coverage to be historical which you could probably argue this will. Maybe retitling the article and re writing portions to reflect the trial and not the individual would be more appropriate rather than deletion and in time if there is continual coverage the article could reflect the individual? Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Notable because he was sentenced to 189 counts of assault" sounds like an arbitrary number to me. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - clearly, obviously notable individual (unfortunately), which passes WP:GNG (several sources), WP:BLP1E (not a single event; sources are all from his recent conviction, but the crimes are not recent and are very many; sources referring to him and his personality also are cited) and WP:PERP (notable crimes). The crimes were notable enough for the sentence to have been further discussed. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are several reliable sources in the article itself, and the man appears to be a serial child sex offender. The media coverage may be a one off (i.e. at the trial) but the actual offense and claim to notability isn't a BLP1E situation. I guess that's what you meant in your nomination regarding the disputed definition of BLP1E. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR. Horrible crimes over many years, and they took place many years ago. Yet the few references for the crime or the criminal are only from a 5 day period. The crimes inspired no societal changes, no new laws, no books or films. Apparently the news media which gave it little coverage did not see it as significant as some Wikipedians do. The crimes may have taken place over a long period, but none was apparently considered notable enough for any coverage until the trial and conviction. Neither the perpetrator nor the victims apparently had any notability outside the crimes. Edison (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Edison said it best. No need to keep this page.--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The recent findings by Candlewicke change everything. They also make a very good argument. Since the trial would have been around the time this became public how could sources exist from when it was unknown?--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.
 * It could be argued that "unknown crimes until the trial" equals "one incident." The additions by Candlewicke are preliminary parts of the same trial plus apparently someone beating up the perpetrator after his misdeeds came to be known. The early hearings of a trial are part of the same trial, hence the same event. Getting beaten up is generally not the stuff of which encyclopedias are made. Edison (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here and here are examples which are not from the five day period and are not even from this year. Here is one from 2007. They exist, they just haven't been added yet. Since the trial would have been around the time this became public how could sources exist from when it was unknown? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Candlewick.--TrustMeTHROW! 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.
 * Keep. Are you going to delete Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, John Wayne Gacy and so on?  A misinterpreted and overly aggressive "BLP1E" has become the tail that wags the dog, and it's time for it to be docked. Wnt (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note I dont think those articles have a problem with BLPE or PERP (Just my thought here though), and are quite different from this article and its concerns that have been raised as has been discussed above. Discussion should also be kept to this article alone and wether it should or shouldnt be deleted. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are differeces...--TrustMeTHROW! 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.


 * Delete I think WP:BLP1E still applies. The event, in this case, can be said to be Curry's trial, which appears to be of only immediate interest (I can't imagine anyone taking an interest in this 15 years from now). In response to Wnt above, this guy does not at all compare to Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold and John Wayne Gacy. Harris and Klebold were involved in an event that's unquestionably significant on its own (BLP1E says bios are appropriate for "Individuals notable for well-documented events"). Gacy has had whole books written about him, and attracted far more attention than this guy. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * *Keep the events are notable and have been subject to mass media coverage.--Little Gordon 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.


 * very strong delete there is no possible way to way to construct a complete biography of this man, only his crimes are notable, which therefore equals WP:ONEEVENT. As for the notability for perpetrators of crimes (WP:PERP), he doesn't fit any of the criteria. He isn't notable beyond the crime itself, he is not a renowned world figure, and it is not (and won't be) a historical event. Viridae Talk 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ottawa4ever, the spirit of WP:BLP1E would apply in this instance.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per r ʨ anaɢ and the WP:BLP1E argument.  — mattisse  (Talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Viridae. Alio The Fool 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article reads like news reporting because it is news reporting. It is not encyclopedic because the underlying material is not encyclopedic. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:35, 8 February 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.