Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dennis Daniels


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

John Dennis Daniels

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

Unsourced article of questionable notability. Violates WP:ONEEVENT and our policy on criminal acts. Wizardman 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Non-notable individual and the article is what appears to be a BLP trainwreck. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been asked to comment how WP:BLP applies when the subject of the article is obviously no longer alive. Our BLP policies embody a set of principles, one of which is to respect human dignity and cover subjects (living and dead) in a neutral, unbiased manner. This article focuses on a specific (non-notable) event. We are here to create the sum of human knowledge; I see no case to be made that this individual should be included in that collection. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite being dead, WP:BLP applies. The article is unsourced, and violates WP:NOT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I didn't mean that WP:BLP applies to the deceased. What I meant was WP:BLP1E is roughly similar to WP:NOT, and could thus be mentioned. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. First, WP:BLP does not apply to dead people, only to living ones. Second, our policy on criminal acts cited by the nom, is Notability (criminal acts), which is not a policy, not even a proposed policy but a proposed guideline. I think there is a weak passable notability case here. There was significant media coverage around the time of trial (1990) and execution (2003). The case attracted extra attention because of supposed mental illness of the death row inmate. There was some international coverage of the execution, apparently because of this, in addition to national coverage (and also local coverage in NC newspapers). The case was subsequently cited in several newsstories about efforts to abolish the death penalty in North Carolina based in part on what happened in this execution. The case was covered in detail in the book "Death Penalty USA: 2003-2004". I think there is a passable notability case here under both WP:N and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd definitely say delete based on the article, except for Nsk92's sources; as I don't have time to read them, I won't vote. But come on, how can a policy about LIVING people be about dead ones?  Shall we remove most information about Neitiqerty Siptah, as he was once a living person whose article is but little referenced?  Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate sources. The information on the execution should be added. the traditional sentence about the last meal is utter trivia, certainly by comparison, and should be removed. DGG (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Are we going to have the criminal records of all executed people on Wikipedia? The article doesn't cite any third party sources to assert notability of this criminal beyond that crime. This is a news story, not encyclopedic content. VG &#x260E; 01:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * not paper. At least for the countries for which we have good accessible news source, it is much less frequent and therefore much more notable than, say, 200 years ago --being only applicable to exceptional crimes -- since only a few of the primary english speaking countries actually have the death penalty. DGG (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (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.