Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Landrigan


 * 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. Merging elsewhere is a possibility, though I have taken the step of moving the article to the correct title. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Jeffrey Landrigan

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

An executed murderer, no evidence of any real notability or reasons why this persons crimes warrant them being in an encyclopedia. E. Fokker (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Notability:
 * Comment I feel the author of the article is trying to make a POINT. Could be heading for a fail regarding WP:SOAPBOX. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This persons crimes are of little significance. His execution and it's method are of import.

The case of this executed murderer was twice before the supreme court. His case went before the supreme court in 2006 because the court needed to make it clear that one cannot instruct one's attorney to offer one case and then claim that said attorney did not proffer mitgating evidence. The case next went before SCOTUS for review because the means of execution was imported from outside the US and the complainant claims that the thiopental does not conform to USDA standards.

The case is also of international importance because the EU have made it clear that they do not want to contribute any of the drugs used in US executions. The Brits have already launched their inquiry into which of their pharmaceutical companies sold the thiopental to Arizona.

The actions of foreign powers attempting to influence US justice with trade practices is also if importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithcure (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC) — Smithcure (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If they don't know which company supplied it, you can hardly say "actions of foreign powers". A chemical company is not a foreign power, no matter how big it might be. You also say it is not illegal for EU nations to export this chemical to non-EU nations. Unless I've missed some news, the USA is a non-EU nation. Therefore, there was no need for any EU government to know about the export. Also, you state at one point that the chemical 'came' from 'Great Britain'. Great Britain is not a member of the EU. The United Kingdom is. Then again, you say later 'may have come from'. I have tagged both these conflicting statements as needing citation. You say "EU have made it clear that they do not want to contribute any of the drugs used in US executions" - you also say it is not illegal. "Instead it is on a list of essential drugs of the World Health Organisation used widely, for anesthesia, induced comas and psychiatry" is a quote from the eubusiness reference you give. Thiopental is still used in hospitals but other methods are now preferred in many. See Sodium thiopental.  There is a lot of confusion in the article, and I still think a POINT is being made, or there is soapboxing here. Wikipedia is not the place to put articles that are not encyclopaedic, and I fear that this one is near to or over the boundary. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that it is the subject's execution - which has received national coverage in all the major media outlets, as well as international coverage - and not his crime that make him notable. Passes WP:BIO/WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." With that said, I do believe there needs to be further discussion in a proper forum regarding the application of WP:NOTNEWS, what is "routine news coverage", and how much consideration is given to news sources in biographies of criminals and political candidates. Location (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. As a biography, this falls under WP:BIO1E, but that could be fixed by renaming to "Execution of Jeffrey Landrigan". All that distinguishes this from thousands of other murder-and-execution stories is that two legal issues went to the Supreme Court, one about adequate trial representation and one about the source of the lethal chemical used, supplied from the EU which has a list (not including this chemical) of goods which may not be exported because they might be used for capital punishment. The question is whether those are (a) significant legal or constitutional issues which warrant an encyclopedia article, or (b) merely desperate, ingenious but unsuccessful legal quibbles devised by lawyers anxious to find yet another appeal reason to string things out. I incline to (b), hence my delete !vote. To say that this is an issue of "foreign powers attempting to influence US justice with trade practices" is, to put it mildly, nonsense. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * It's usually best to start by looking for sources. This, this, this and this are examples of the sources that belong in this article. JohnCD is correct to say that the article should be renamed Execution of Jeffrey Landrigan because of WP:BIO1E but his analysis omits part of the significance of Landrigan's execution, which is about allegations of British and/or European involvement in capital punishment in view of the European Convention on Human Rights.— S Marshall  T/C 11:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But neither the article's sources nor your four new ones say anything about "allegations of British and/or European involvement in capital punishment in view of the European Convention on Human Rights", or about "foreign powers attempting to influence US justice with trade practices." None of these issues was raised in the appeals: the lawyers' case, which the Supreme Court rejected, was only that the imported drug "might not meet U.S. FDA standards and could cause unnecessary suffering."


 * The only indication in the sources of anything beyond that is an unattributed statement in one of the newspaper reports that: "There is speculation that the purchase of the drug from a British company could be illegal because it leads to profit from the supply of drugs used in an execution." (My emphasis). That is pretty thin, given that
 * the substance is a legal and widely-used anaesthetic, is only one of three drugs used in the execution process, and is not a prohibited export.
 * the same report quotes the Supreme Court saying: "There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect".


 * It seems that none of the lawyers or judges concerned raised any of these "significant" issues; there may be some attempt, possibly by anti-capital-punishment campaigners, to whip up a controversy after the event, but the sources cited, including your new ones, fail to show any significance. The article's only justification is the statement "Landrigan's execution is significant because one of the drugs... had to be imported from abroad". Yes, it had to be imported, but no, that does not make the execution significant, and the sources do not support that statement. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * By "significance" do you mean notability? Because that has a tolerably precise definition.  Something's notable if there are reliable sources that have noted it.  And British national newspapers rarely care about American executions unless there's something of international interest about them.  I've linked the sources, they're reliable and they're about the subject, so there's an article to be written.— S Marshall  T/C 22:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. (We've had this discussion before, but I forget where). Multiple reliable sources do not mean that an article is necessarily appropriate. If sources alone were enough, every murder, every scandal, every celebrity affair would qualify, and we might as well merge with Wikinews. See the actual text of the WP:GNG:
 * "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not."
 * Part of WP:NOT is WP:NOTNEWS, expanded on in the essay WP:109PAPERS. If this is just a standard murder + failed legal appeals + execution story, it will be in lots of papers but will not be encyclopedically notable. The only thing in this article that purports to lift it above that is the statement "Landrigan's execution is significant because one of the drugs... had to be imported from abroad", which is not supported by any source. The importation is sourced, but the significance is not. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The significance of using an imported drug, or the source of that drug, in the execution is most definitely implied in that fact that it has been reported on by national and international sources (e.g. Murderer Executed in Arizona and Legal bid to stop export of 'execution drug'). When the coverage of someone or something is reported nationally and then internationally, that suggests something beyond the "routine news reporting" clause of WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've had this conversation with various people before. This "presumption" business is treacherous.  The benefit of a simple, bright-line notability criterion is that any editor can establish for themselves whether a topic is a fit one for an article.  This is what enables people to create content without going through a committee process first, so it's important and not lightly to be set aside.  A consensus of editors can override the presumption, because a consensus can override most things on Wikipedia, but with respect, right now this "consensus" of (I think) three editors is on quicksand, because the sources support what I'm saying. This source is about the human rights implications of the execution.  So is this source. This source is a national British newspaper calling for the company supplying the drug to be named and shamed. This source is a different newspaper (although admittedly a tabloid) saying the same thing.  Unsurprisingly, Amnesty International has something to say about it.  This source says "This is the first situation in which Arizona was short of stock of the drug and the state acknowledged to acquire the chemicals of lethal injections from another country."  This source raises the same point. The fact is, if all those sources had been in the article in the first place, it would never have come to AfD.— S Marshall  T/C 23:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sources => notability" is certainly a nice, simple bright-line rule, but it isn't what the policy says, for good reason: it would let in all sorts of unencyclopedic fluff, contrary to WP:NOT. "Footballer's new girlfriend shock!!!" "Footballer's girlfriend's new hairdo sensation!!!" Seriously, do you think Wikinews has any independent role? It would also let a campaigner get something in by stirring up an artificial storm about a non-issue to get headlines, which is what I suspect is going on here. JohnCD (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah... this isn't in exactly the same category as "footballer's girlfriend's new hairdo sensation!!!", is it? Admittedly, the Metro is a tabloid, but I've also quoted The Guardian and Location has quoted The Independent.  These are serious newspapers.  The BBC also have an article on the subject.  How much evidence of serious overseas interest will it take to persuade you?  Or are you simply unpersuadable? Wikinews certainly has an independent role.  It publishes original research including interviews and reader comments, and structures information differently.  Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of Wikinews exists prevents Wikipedia content creators from using news sources in an article? As for your final remark, I think we may need to agree to differ about what is, and what is not, a non-issue.— S Marshall  T/C 15:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, about this article we shall have to agree to disagree, and leave space for others to give their views. If you want to carry on the general conversation perhaps we should take it to one of our talk pages. This is certainly a different case from the girlfriend's hairdo, which I introduced as an extreme example to show that your position of "if there are sources there should be an article" doesn't really stand up. Some subjects can be sourced but are undoubtedly non-encyclopedic, and the argument is about where to draw the line; it doesn't help to deny that there is any line. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Sodium thiopental. Subject is non-notable per WP:PERPETRATOR, with zero coverage beyond the single issue of his execution. The shortage and subsequent import for his execution is certainly worth including in Sodium thiopental, and perhaps Lethal injection. Top Jim (talk) 06:17, 9 November 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.