Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Petty


 * 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. There does not appear to be consensus for a redirect, but this does not preclude one created as an editorial decision following deletion. Star  Mississippi  01:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Kenneth Petty

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject fails WP:CRIM; only apparent reason for subject's media coverage is that he is married to Nicki Minaj, thus meets WP:INVALIDBIO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Question. these days I'm rarely brave enough to look at AFD but when I do I'm usually perplexed. Why do you think a redirect would be unsuitable? Do you think the information about Petty in Nicki Minaj should be removed? Or extended so that the present article becomes otiose? Or is WP's search facility now so good as to make such redirects redundant? Or would the presence of a redirect make Google carry out some undesirable indexing? I wonder what is your line of thinking here? Thincat (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's a very long time since I nominated an article at AFD and so the process is unfamiliar. Sure, I'd be fine with it being made a redirect, but I assumed the creator, who has clearly put some work into the article, would not have accepted that, in which case it would end up at AFD anyway. With regard to the information on Minaj's page - of course it should not be removed, and I'd be fine with more about her husband's past being added to that article so long as it isn't excessive. WP:CRIM states that A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person, and the Minaj article would qualify here. One might alternatively argue that Petty is also known as Minaj's husband, and that therefore he qualifies under CRIM, but just being known as somebody else's spouse also meets INVALIDBIO. Basically, this guy would not have an article if he wasn't Minaj's husband, because neither his crimes nor his career are significant enough to qualify. Gatoclass (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your helpful reply. I shan't !vote here but I'll watch as future participants strive to reach a harmonious consensus! Thincat (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for the thoughtful response. Gatoclass (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh. I now see from talk that the unstated AFD rationale may be to block the article's progress through DYK. Would that not be an abuse of process? (None of my remarks should be taken as support for the presence of the article). Thincat (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If I was in the habit of trying to block an article's progress at DYK through AFD I would be here on a regular basis, which clearly I am not. Besides, whether an article should exist and whether it should be featured at DYK are two separate issues, and I might object to this article being promoted at DYK regardless of the outcome here, given that it reads as little more than an attack page. The reason I started this AFD is quite simply that I could not see any justification for its existence, per CRIM and INVALIDBIO, that's all there is to it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: not !voting since I'm the creator but point 2 of WP:CRIM says that the subject is noteworthy if the event is "well-documented". Coverage (in publications with very rigorous editorial standards) has been going on this for years. And that he's married to Minaj is only relevant because she caused the coverage to explode, but that doesn't make the extensive coverage in reliable sources invalid. — VersaceSpace  🌃 15:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: None of the information here warrants its own article. Additionally, we aren't allowed to use mugshots of people as their lead images. The article in question seems very defamatory, with no mention of Minaj's legal statement against the accusations, nor the only reason that Hough dropped the lawsuit is because of "jurisdictional issues." rogueshanghai chat (they/them) 07:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and there is nothing in the article for which this individual would be notable, except that he has a famous spouse. BD2412  T 17:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - it does not make enough common sense for Petty to make an entry on WP as it lacks WP:NOTABILITY. He's only an individual who's not best known for anything and also an unknown offender. Just because he married an all-star rapper doesn't make him noticeable enough. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 20:21, 20 July 2022 (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.