Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hank Skinner


 * 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The result was   Keep: nomination withdrawn. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Skinner

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

This convicted murderer on death row seems like a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I'm withdrawing the nomination due to a discussion with Adumoul. Someone can close this afd since there has been no delete votes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough to me. Sources are in place. Given time, this article will indeed grow. Jeremy (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Two events, no suitable merger target. The well-publicized multiple murders and the controversy over the reportedly corrupt appointment of his trial attorney. The latter was covered by the Washington Post, as referenced in the article, which wouldn't happen for a garden-variety Texas murder spree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is notoriety. The controversy about the trial attorney appointment is not the only irregularity of the case, there is also a pending appeal about untested evidence, there is a debate about capital punishment itself, and why to single out this one? all the 80 articles of the category "People convicted of murder by Texas" should then also be deleted. Adumoul (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Though Skinner is considered guilty by most, he is a focal point for people who oppose capital punishment in the U.S. in general, and Texas in particular. As a research subject for those examining capital punishment the article is relevant.  It should be noted that this whole deletion incident started after vandalism was done to the article by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.  The article had been developing for several years, was in the neighborhood of 2000 words, people on both sides of the issue were making good contributions and all of a sudden Hullaballoo Wolfowitz blew through and reduced it to little more than a blurb.  It's not like a bad article had sat dormant for months or years and he pruned it.  That user apparently has a checkered history at Wikipedia - being blocked, causing disruptions, etc.  So not only do I say keep the article, I say restore it to its state prior to the vandalism and let it evolve naturally, as it was doing.grifterlake (talk) 04:31, 19 August 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.