Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Earl Bates


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Interesting issue, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Earl Bates
Delete This is about as boring as a death penalty case could ever hope to be. No sex, children, or race involved. No novel legal issues. If this one doesn't deserve deletion then we may as well add being executed in the United States after 1976 to WP:BIO since I can't image a less notable murderer than Joseph Earl Bates. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - If this was about an execution in China (30,000 executions a year) then maybe you'd be right. Endomion 05:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I object to the notion that executions are notable or non-notable depending on where they're performed. That smacks of Western bias. Durova 18:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The relevant difference is only that China, Saudi Arabia, etc., are relatively secretive, making WP:V information about the executed hard to obtain; also, relatedly, there is less domestic public debate over execution in those nations, given speech restrictions. Otherwise, they would be cataloged fully, as with the US.
 * Keep Boring executed murderers are still executed murderers. I think there is more here than the stub suggests, but the stub is useful on its own. Death penalty is simply too controversial in the US to delete any executed Americans. Xoloz 05:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Not really.  He confessed to the crime and killed the victim because he thought he had something to do with his house being shot up. The sole point of notability he has is that he was executed in the U.S. after 1976, so this is the perfect test case for whether that is sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article. Caerwine Caerwhine  05:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't submitting something as a "test-case" qualify as Disrupting WP to make a point ? Endomion 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. He's not illustrating anything. He's testing the ground. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a thousand times better than the only alternative, that is nominating every single related article in a giant bulk. Flyboy Will 06:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, this isn't WP:POINT. Every executed individual in the US receives ample nationwide press in the US. We don't need to rewrite WP:BIO, since every executed inmate already qualifies on that account. Xoloz 17:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If he were to list every article about someone who was executed in the United States, that would be a violation of WP:POINT, but just testing the waters isn't a problem.  Oh, and keep, verifiable.  JYolkowski // talk 18:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Request for info: I know there have been a few executed criminal articles on AfD lately, and there are arguments for and against deletion. Could someone direct me to a discussion on this topic, if it exists? Thank you. --Fang Aili 05:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. -- JJay 05:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete a person whose only notability is being executed belongs in a list of executions, and does not deserve his own article. Flyboy Will 06:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If he has any sort of notability beyond being executed, then this article will be recreated with no problem. Alas, it seems he does not. --Apostrophe 08:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The Death penalty is never boring. Jakiah 10:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. 400 google hits for "Joseph Earl Bates".  media coverage. --Quarl 11:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not-notable, nothing to distinguish this case from other executions. He's already on the List of individuals executed in North Carolina (why do editors think they need to start a separate article for every name on a list?) --  Dalbury ( Talk )  12:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. If editors feel the need to address the death penalty in the United States, then I suggest creating more articles on death row inmates and populating the new category.  Durova 18:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand -- you support articles for the thousands on death row, but not for the thousand actually executed in 28 years? Curious position, I feel. Xoloz 19:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that Durova is arguing that if the notability of a person derives from being subjected to the death penalty in the United States, then in that sense, those that have been setenced to death but not had that sentence carried out are as notable as those who have reached the end of the appeals process without having the sentence reduced. Caerwine Caerwhine 20:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with him. We should have articles for every person on death row + their victims. Every one of those cases is important, just like this case, for the political ramifications. -- JJay 20:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, when we begin talking about every person on death row, my only objection is a number problem. Plenty of folks spend only a little time there, before being commuted, retried, or killed in prison.  The advantage to sticking only to the executed is that those cases have proved enduring and compelling enough for the state to go forward with the sentence of death. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What ramifications? Guy kills person, gets killed himself. If you're talking about the controversy over capital punishment, the article does a fine job of showing that without need for articles on every person executed. --Apostrophe 20:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've never really heard of a lengthy capital murder conviction that hasn't had ample state-wide press (at least), prompted commentary on crime and criminal justice from public figures, and motivated legal response through attempted reform. Despite the effort of the nom. to classify Bates as boring, I don't see it here either. Xoloz 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing that everything that makes the news should end up in Wikipedia and that therefore we had no reason to split off Wikinews. Other than providing an occasion for the pro-DP and anti-DP activists to make their commentary, I find zero evidence of any lasting impact here and this case is far less noteworthy than the December 2005 South Carolina ice storm which does not appear to have an article, nor should it, despite receiving far more press coverage and causing the deaths of more people. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The difference between a Wikinews only topic and a Wikipedia topic is one of depth, scope, and importance of the topic. Personally, I'd argue that "Sam, the world's ugliest dog" is why Wikinews exists separately -- that is "news of the day"-type story.  As it happens, I think Sam is in WP too.  Sigh.  In any event, serious affairs of law and state (which every US execution is) are exactly why encyclopedias were made in the first place, and they still form the very heart of what I call encyclopedic. Xoloz 21:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam is an edge case, and I certainly wouldn't complain if his article were merged into the World's Ugliest Dog Contest article. That said, I would definitely consider Sam to be more notable than Mr. Bates who also falls into that "news of the day" category you mentioned. Caerwine Caerwhine  22:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, I think we have reached an honest, very deep, impasse of meaning. To me, if an encyclopedia exists for anything, it exists for to cover significant topics of philosophy and history, of which state executions (and those so executed) are a chapter.  Sincerely, I cannot see how an ugly dog meets notability requirements, where state executed fail. Xoloz 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The execution of condemned criminals is encyclopedic. With rare exceptions, the story of each person executed is not encyclopedic. Questions of philosophy and history are best addressed in general articles, not in articles about individuals that do not provide any point on which to hang a unique argument that could not be repeated in every other article about an executed individual. (this seems to be from Dalbury)
 * There, I also disagree. Each executed individual is a worthy subject of criminological (or, if they are wrongly executed, sociological) study.  Researchers who study crime do not develop generalized patterns simply from the Ted Bundys and Charles Mansons of the world.  Even the simple facts of their childhood are of scholarly (and, often, macabre popular) interest.  Additionally, each capital murder is certain notably to affect its community, region, or state, as discussed above. Xoloz 00:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but this is an encyclopedia not a compendium of all human knowledge. The mission of an encyclopedia is to provide a concise crystalization of the details and pointers to where the detailed information of limited interest can be found for those seeking greater knowledge about a narrow topic. A pointer to the minutiae of Mr. Bates' case in the List of individuals executed in North Carolina article would more than satisfy that requirement. Caerwine Caerwhine  04:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose that idea in theory, but I would wish to see it applied consistently across the 'pedia. As I'm sure you'll agree it isn't, and my concern is that I don't want the executed given less extensive treatment solely on the basis of their "evil".  I strongly believe that an encyclopedia should cover the best and worst of human deeds in equal measure. Xoloz 15:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the political ramifications for the people & States involved. -- JJay 21:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position, I have seen editors contend that executions in the United States are more notable than executions in the Third World. I reject that argument as inherently biased.  It is neither possible nor wise to catalog all capital criminals everywhere.  If Wikipedia repeats an error about a school, little real harm is done.  If we insert the wrong name or remain unaware when a conviction is overturned, then anyone in the world with an Internet connection may read false and damaging information about an innocent person.  Even posthumous vindications matter for the sake of the surviving relatives.  I find more potential encyclopedic value in death row inmates than in executed prisoners.  To judge by the comments of some editors, it appears some people's time would be better spent writing for Amnesty International than for Wikipedia. Durova 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it, Durova, if you'd address my comments regarding the reasons US executions are more appropriate for WP, immediately below your original vote. No bias exists in such a selection, only honest, regrettable, WP:V and notability concerns. Xoloz 04:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Jcuk 23:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Flyboy Will and  Dalbury . Zunaid 14:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Executed convicts in the United States are notable simply because they were executed. There are only a little over 1,000 persons that fit this category in the last 30 years. These individuals are notable as part of the debate surrounding the death penalty in the United States. Nolamgm 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Then the purpose could be served equally well by a list of executions iwth brief summaries, and fully fledged articles only for those who achieved notoriety in some or other way. Zunaid 08:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is an area of American society that is currently part of a heated debate. Detailed, accurate, and neutral articles about each case can only serve to help this debate and thus the public in general. I am failing to see what is the concern over a full article on each case. Nolamgm 15:51, 28 December 2005 (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.