Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John A. Brown, Jr.


 * 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. There seems to be no consensus to delete at the moment. Personally, I thought the delete votes had arguments more in line with policy, but I would rather that the RfC reach a consensus first, so that we could have something to refer back to in the future. NW ( Talk ) 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

John A. Brown, Jr.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This murderer fails WP:BLP1E. The only coverage for the incident that I found after the crime was about him being sentenced to death. The crime, trial, and the result is all part of one event. What is funny is that an editor rambled on the talk page about how all murderers were notable because all Olympic, Emmy, etc award winners are notable. I don't see how anyone could compare winning something major to WP:BLP1E. By the editor's reasoning, everyone can become notable by killing someone. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unfortunately, there are a lot more murderers than Oscar winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, etc. Just being a murderer is not a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote the article. As I have said before, I believe everyone who has been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States is notable for inclusion. If an honest and open debate is going to take place about capital punishment then there should be a record of who the criminal justice has decided is worthy of the ultimate punishment. This is a total of 1,173 men and women. As the nom noted, he was unable to find anything of the crime except that Brown was sentenced to death. As a trained lawyer, I am able to access court decisions to get the information to write the article. The general public will not be able to find this information. If the article is deleted then this information will become much more difficult to access. Nolamgm (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you think that 1,173 non-notable murderers should have an article because they were sentenced to death? Joe Chill (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I think the 1,173 people put to death are notable because they have been put to death. Not just sentenced. Actually executed. Look at my userpage or Anna Pou if you you have any question about who I am or what I truly beleive. I am not pro-murder or trying to make people famous for being killers. I have spent my entire professional life trying to put as many as I can in either prison or on death row. When a civilized society decides that somebody has forfeited the right to live, it is notable. As the other editor pointed out, if we are going to list everyone who has won a Daytime Emmy Award, we can have an article about the 1,173 people we have put to death and the horrible crimes they committed. Nolamgm (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You said that "everyone who has been executed since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the United States is notable for inclusion." What about the people who were executed during the first 180+ years of U.S. history? What is the basis for distinguishing them from the people executed since 1976? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With my background and interest, I probably wouldn't object for the inclusion of any crime that resulted in an execution. The only reason I make any distinguishment between pre-1976 and post-1976 is that when I started writing these articles there was already a list on WP of people executed in Louisiana. For academic and scholarly purposes, you can get much more accurate description of capital crimes post-1976 because they were subjected to much review on an appellate level. If we are going to have pages such as Student Academy Awards then there is room for pages like Brown's. Nolamgm (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep though possible retitle, as I will explain. I though I would not support this article, but the arguments of Nolamgm have caused me to re-evaluate. I see it, however, from the diametrically opposite viewpoint:  When an ostensible civilized society actually itself engages in the deliberate killing of individual citizens,  a practice extinct in all countries of an similar cultural background, and it is covered as widely as all post 1976 executions in the US are, and with the great international interest from the countries that no longer do this,   and with as reliable a sourcing as always appears in the appeal cases, then the event is notable, though perhaps the article should be called Execution of John A. Brown, Jr. under our principle of covering the event, not the person.    The trial, appeal, protests, and execution  are   what should be emphasized, not the original crime--though of course that is important background also.    The conjunction of the two viewpoints we represent can make these articles acceptably NPOV. I  agree with Nolamgm  in rejecting Joe Chill's argument that only meritorious accomplishments are notable. They are certainly more pleasant to discuss, but emphasizing them in the encyclopedia  is not NPOV. I am not really concerned that anyone would engage in murder in order to get a Wikipedia article.       DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the support in not deleting the article. However, I disagree that it is the trial, appeal, protests, and execution are what are notable. Quite honestly, I know of nothing notable about any of these in regards to Brown. I have rejected in other discussions about executed murderers the position that an individual is notable because Sister Helen wrote a book about them.  In my view, Brown is notable because is one of the very select few our country has executed since 1976. Nationally only 2.5% of defendant's charged with capital murder are sentenced to death. There is a review of all death sentences by appellate courts as to "proportionality." I believe this a major part of the debate - even among those who support capital punishment. Therefore, I believe the crime is what is notable. As for NPOV, I recall copying most the of article from the Louisiana Supreme Court opinion affirming Brown's death sentence. Nolamgm (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that anyone would murder to have an article. I don't think that billions of non-notable murderers throughout history should have an article. If this event was considered notable, every single murderer could have an article. Examples of notable murderers are Adolf Hitler, Zodiac Killer, and Alphabet Killer. I was not expressing a POV. Awards have never been considered as WP:BLP1E which is why I said that the editor's belief is flawed because winning a major award does show notability per every guideline. How does being killed show that it passes WP:BLP1E? How is this guy historically significant to have an article? Why do inclusionists always say to rename every single article about a non-notable murderer to something like Killing of Blah Blah or June 2006 murder of blah blah? I don't see how you could have totally misunderstood my comment. Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, lets apply the policy. "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." I contend that every execution since 1976 is significant enough for an article in WP. As the person executed, Brown has the ultimate degree of significance in the event. He is the ultimate cause of the events that let up to his execution. Nolamgm (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be 1,173 non-notable murderers with articles. He was executed which in no way gets him out of WP:BLP1E. Do you think that everyone that is the cause of being notable for one event should have an article? He is an ordinary murderer even though he was executed. If there is info on him, it should be mentioned in a different article and he should not have his own article because he is not notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I was in court I would ask you to rephrase your question. I truly don't understand it. I don't know if you are opposed to the information being on WP or just don't like murderers. As I tell juries all the time, the only cause of a murder is the murderer. The victim did not cause it. He bad upbringing did not cause it. Brown deciding to kill caused it. There is no other cause. Here are my questions: What makes a murderer notable then? If he gets lots of press coverage? Does he have to kill someone famous? That Brown was of the rare 2.5% of those convicted of murder to get sentenced to death and then of the even rarer 1% to actually get executed not enough? Again my position is that every time someone is executed in the United States it is notable. Brown is inextricably linked to his execution by a significant degree. Brown and his execution are one and the same. I understand you feel murderers should not be notable. As I life long residence of New Orleans, which usually is the murder capital of the country, I can tell you it becomes very sad when murders stop become notable. I am also frightened by the prospect that the decision to execute a fellow human can be viewed as a "non-notable" event. Nolamgm (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Did he have any significant coverage after his execution? If he didn't, then it falls underWP:BLP1E. Sad doesn't always equal notable. When did I say that all murderers aren't notable? I just linked to three notable murderers above as murderers being notable. How could you have missed that? It's frightening that people want articles kept because of their personal opinions and dismiss the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "or just don't like murderers". That's funny. Do you like murderers? Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not going to respond to your personal attack. Read who I am if you actually want that question answered. I am not hiding behind a fake name. I said that all murders executed since 1976 are notable. Dispute that or don't. What does coverage after his execution have to do with if he is notable? I am really done with this debate. If this article is deleted please nominate the other ones I wrote on the same subject. Capital punishment in Louisiana is a good place to start. 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that I'm referring to notable in the Wikipedia sense? It seems like you don't. Everything that you're saying is filled with POV. Joe Chill (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My only POV is this discussion is that all murders executed since 1976 are notable. Nolamgm (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly is a personal attack? I was called a troll and told to leave Wikipedia and that was fine with everyone in ANI even though I didn't say anything bad throughout the discussion. Coverage after the execution shows that he is historically significant for his one event. The concensus is that people that are notable for one event need to have coverage after the event. You are the only one going by your POV in this AFD while I am going by long standing concensus. You just admitted that you were using your point of view throughout the debate. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Location (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. All of us who have commented thus far seem to agree that there is nothing notable about the murder or the murderer's trial and conviction, but the question seems to be whether the subject should be granted inherent notability based on his execution. "Other stuff" aside, the issue of capital punishment in the United States has great worldwide interest but there is currently no consensus supporting the assertion that "all murderers executed since 1976 are notable". I do not object to the subject being mentioned List of individuals executed in Louisiana since that is where any notability he has should be mentioned. On the other hand, I will admit there is one very strong argument to keep. According to the Weekly World News, Satan appeared in his execution chamber.Location (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I said I was done with this debate but this has been bothering me. I am confused by the position that seems be forming during this discussion that it is acceptable to list Brown as having been executed but not acceptable to provide details about his crime and  conviction. If he is notable enough to be mentioned, why is he not notable enough to be have an article?  I admit I am not well versed in WP bureaucracy. However, I will attempt to apply WP:GNG as best I can. 1. Significant coverage Brown's denial of final appeals was covered by the Times-Picayune and Associated Press over the course three years by at least five articles. I just ran a search in the Westlaw database for news in Louisiana. I am sorry I can not link to it, but it is not a free database. These articles appeared either in the TP or over the AP wire on July 27, 1995, July 28, 1995, August 19, 1995, April 20, 1997, April 21, 1997, April 24, 1997, and April 25, 1997. These articles are more that just blurbs about his execution.  2. ReliableAs I have said before, I wrote the article by using Brown's Louisiana Supreme Court opinion affirming his conviction. Anyone can pull it up. It is cited in the article. 3. SourcesAgain, coverage can be located in Times-Picayune, AP, and by the LASC. 4. Independent of the subjectThe sources listed above are by major press organization  and  a court. Both are clearly independent of the subject. I beleive the opposition is resting on the fact that Brown is known for one event. I cannot dispute that. He is known because of the murder he committed and punishment that came as a result of it. However if the event itself, his execution, is worthy of inclusion and mention, then his article should fit the standard as well. WP:BLP1E states "If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." Certainly, Brown played a "substantial" role is the murder and his execution. The murder and his execution are well documented. However I donot beleive that WP:BLP1E should even apply to this article.  WP:BLP1E is part of the WP:BLP policy. Why it is applied to person very much dead?  From reading it, I beleive it was created to stop bios of living persons known for only one "15 minutes of fame" event. As a living person who probably fits this definition, I support it 100%. However, this policy should not be applied to the deceased. Nolamgm (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that every dead person that is notable for one event should have an article? Of course he has a substantial part of the event because he was the murderer. He was just an ordinary murderer that was executed. Concensus is that non-notable topics don't deserve an article, but can still be mentioned in a related article. Joe Chill (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because he is dead. By its very title, the policy of Biography of a Living Person can not apply to someone dead. The policy you cite in your nomination does not apply. He fails WP:BLP1E because he is dead. I don't know the answer to your question because I don't think WP has policy for dead people notable for one event. Brown became notable by his death - judicial execution for his crime - not his life. You are incorrect is saying that he " was just an ordinary murderer that that was executed." "Ordinary" murderers are not executed. It is only the extraordinary ones that are executed. It is only 2.5% of convicted murderers that are sentenced to death and only a fraction of those sentenced to death actually get executed. As we tell juries in my state, capital punishment is reserved for the "worst of the worst." Nolamgm (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E would be the relevant policy for dead people. Initially you stated: "I disagree that it is the trial, appeal, protests, and execution are what are notable." and "I believe the crime is what is notable." Now you are stating: "Brown became notable by his death - judicial execution for his crime - not his life." It really doesn't matter because there is no consensus in Wikipedia that ALL murders are notable or that ALL executions are notable. Murders and executions occur infrequently but they occur frequently enough that not all are notable by Wikipedia standards. Location (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Each hijackers in the September 11 attacks has his own individual article. They are only notable for one event. Should they be deleted too and only mention in the main article? Or on the other side of the spectrum what about two of the United States' greatest heros - Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon. Both of these Delta operators are notable for one event - heroically and selflessly giving up there own lives in an attempt to rescue a downed Blackhawk pilot during the Battle of Mogadishu. Should they only get a mention in Battle of Mogadishu? Nolamgm (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. Location (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I retort withWP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:JNN. I cited the examples to show how WP:BLP1E does not apply to the dead. Nolamgm (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the heck would you campare this guy with 9/11? They are historically significant because they caused one of the biggest events in history while all this guy did was murder one person and be executed. How does this guy match with something as historically significant as 9/11? Is there an anniversary every year that is used to remember this one person that got killed? Joe Chill (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Same policy applies to both Brown and the 9-11 hijackers. They are both notable for one event. Nolamgm (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't if the event is historically significant. How did you miss that? You obviously don't understand Wikipedia notability that well. Joe Chill (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can say that doesn't apply to dead people all you want, but that belief is flawed. Saying that goes against years of concensus and only goes by your personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk)
 * Nolamgm, I think it is clear that Joe Chill meant to use WP:BIO1E (applicable to the dead) in his nomination and not WP:BLP1E (applicable to the living). The two are extremely similar so I think it would be wikilawyering to belabor the point. Not all "other stuff" meets the criteria. Location (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that you're responding with the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? How did you make that mistake? Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Was the snide comment for me or Location? I was pointing out the false logic is pointing out a potential violation of policy in potential violation of other policy. Nevertheless, WP:OTHERSTUFF says you should not say we have an article on x so we should be able to have on on Brown. I used examples of how the policy of WP:BIO1E should be correctly applied. Thank you Location for pointing out the correct policy. (I guess this is why we have WP:JUSTAPOLICY; explain what is wrong with an article and don't just cite to policy.) As I have done above, I will now attempt to apply WP:BIO1E to this article. "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Ok, I say Brown's execution is notable. I cited references for this position. If you disagree, try to do so without responding WP:JNN. "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Again, he was the one who was executed. Now comes the problem part: "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." I guess this is where the suggestion from above comes from that that article become "The execution of John Brown, Jr." The only thing I can really say on this point is that it is a "general" rule. Not absolute. I shutter at the thought of renaming the article to the "Execution of John Brown, Jr." I would rather see it deleted. I don't know what else to call it. "Execution of John Brown, Jr." makes it sound like it is only about the execution. Nothing notable about the execution itself. (Except for Satan appearing.) "State of Louisiana v. John Brown, Jr." makes it sound like it is about the LASC case. Again, I don't recall any great law coming from it. If we are going to keep the article I think it has stay as named. As I said, this is why it is a "general" rule. However the last sentence of WP:BIO1E - "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved."- may offer some guidance. In this case, I would argue that John Brown, Jr. is more widely known then the event that makes him notable - his execution. Nolamgm (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How did we have this long debate if all said did was point to a policy? That makes no sense so that belief is extermely flawed. Everything that you're saying doesn't change the fact that he is only notable for one insignificant (in the Wikipedia sense) event that shouldn't be compared to award winners and 9/11. Joe Chill (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Joe Chill (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent explanation of your position. Next time just type WP:JNN. Nolamgm (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilarious! I explained my position in paragraph after paragraph just like you. Why the heck would you point me to that and tell me to say It's non-notable and that's it? Joe Chill (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NLIST answers why his name can be included in a list without an entire article being created for him. Location (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Executed criminals are notable by virtue of the coverage that each has: First, for the crime, and second, for the various appeals needed before the actual execution happens. Those are not one event. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. You could say that every murderer doesn't fit one event (which there are people that do). There is a result for every single crime and there is always something that leads to the result so that does not get it out of one event. There are people that say that billions of non-notable criminals throughout history should have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Due to some of the issues that have been raised here, I've started an Rfc at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (criminal_acts). Location (talk) 02:05, 13 September 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.