Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Couch


 * 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. There is a clear consensus that this article should not be deleted. There is some feeling that the article should be moved, or that it should be merged into another article, but no consensus for either. However, this closure is made without prejudice against raising either or both of those possibilities for further discussion on the article's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ethan Couch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Sensational news of no long term significance. ...William 19:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions....William 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions....William 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I put it to you the New York Times does not seem to agree:
 * But in recent days, the implications of being rich have set off an emotional, angry debate that has stretched far beyond the North Texas suburbs, after a juvenile court judge sentenced a 16-year-old from a well-off family to 10 years’ probation for killing four people in a drunken-driving crash.  (from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/us/teenagers-sentence-in-fatal-drunken-driving-case-stirs-affluenza-debate.html?_r=1&) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The incident is unquestionably notable and deserves mentioning due to widespread media coverage alone. Also, judging by the facts that you do not propose any alternative solution to preserving this information, you have the gall to use phrase such as "no long term significance" while you yourself create such irrelevant articles like Viasa Flight 897 and that you have userboxes such as "This user is a member of WikiProject US Courts and judges" on your user page makes me believe that you are proposing this article deletion NOT because your care about Wikipedia and its well-being BUT because you are pursuing some kind of personal agenda, most likely related to one of your personal friends/relatives or former co-workers. 98.116.9.131 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ethan Couch case This case is indisputably notable, but I don't think there's any way to find enough biographical information on this guy without raising privacy concerns. The Ashley Todd mugging hoax comes to mind here. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Move to Ethan Couch case The case has recieved nationwide/international publicity and interest and easily meets notability requirements. Probably should be retitled though. Equilibrium007 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT to Ethan Crouch Case This does have long term consequences because of potential Case Law and could be considered notable and general societal impact. Tragicfame (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It is COUCH, not CROUCH. Don't cover up for this quadruple murderer, keep the wiki page alive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.111.245 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT to Ethan Couch Case This case does sound like it has a social impact. I don't see how Ethan Couch is notable apart from the case, and will refrain from commenting on him personally.  Note that I came to the page from Crooked Timber, which linked to the current page.  So a redirect is appropriate.  (http://crookedtimber.org/2013/12/16/affluenza-as-liars-paradox/)  DavidHobby (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ethan Couch Case -- the case itself is more than notable in its perversion of basic legal principles. Simple deletion is not an option. Trigaranus (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess Redirect to the mentioned article is the best.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's too early to tell if this case will engender any sort of lasting change, and unless it does, it's just yet another example of wealth buying privilege.  If it DOES cause change, we can always recreate it later.  I appreciate people see deleting the page as "covering" for Ethan, but WP should not be used as a scarlet letter. - Drlight11 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This should not be deleted, regardless of outcome, because it's an interesting and notable case that spawned a (however short-lived) social controversy. Keeping it costs Wikipedia nothing while deleting it would make it that much harder to find out information about this. I was researching the topic and learned a lot from the Wikipedia page. -Arcataroger (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well referenced and passes notability.  I found it when I wanted to learn more about Ethan Couch. --Nowa (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is the central figure in what has already become an important legal case, one that has injected a novel legal theory into real life. Brimba (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ethan Couch Case; while I think the case itself will have its own legal and social repercussions and is certainly notable, I do not believe Ethan Couch himself is very notable. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This case isn't going away. Its close to the top of many front pages today. Having an article about both the case and one or more principals involved isn't problematic in my opinion. Tjc (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The facts of the case are needed to judge the validity of the sentence. People who hear about a teen getting probation for four deaths need to know the details to judge whether justice was served. Adallas (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I count on wikipedia to provide the facts of this incident. The article does not seem like a judgment. It is very factual and it helps me to quickly understand what's happening in this case. Please keep this page. We can easily judge for ourselves without wikipedia but at least wikipedia is there to present the facts. I hate trollish people in wikipedia who dispute and whine and complain about every wiki page/article/entry because they are superior Western intellectual beings. Wikipedia is more of a resource. It is not an encyclopedia per say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.190.11 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Since the suggested redirect target does not exist, and never has existed, I can only assume that the editors saying "redirect" actually mean "keep and rename". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you all mean MOVE, which is not my !vote.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This person is an example of the use of Affluenza and the content ought to be condensed and then merged there. I don't think this meets the third criteria of WP:BLP1E (so shouldn't remain as a stand-alone article), particularly since the example there is someone that tried to assassinate an American President. I'm also concerned that he's a juvenile (NPR declined to even name him on the air), although I'm not aware whether that raises any policy issue for us.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have it backward on WP:BLP1E. If the event is significant and if the person's role is well documented, then there should be a BLP.  John Hinckley, Jr. is provided as an example to show when this is the case.--Nowa (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  Keep or redirect with history  - My first instinct is that the "Ethan Couch case" is a key story regarding the affluenza defense. With that being said, at a minimum, the article should be redirected with history to Affluenza, if not "Ethan Couch case". --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the extent of sources available takes us well beyond any prospect of deletion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 23 December 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.