Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda carty


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Linda Carty

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:BLP1E. Non-notable other than the fact that she committed a crime and is on death row in Texas. Javért  &#124;  Talk 06:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether she commited the crime is questionable. Besides, anyone who is lined up for judicial killing in the most industrially advanced country in the world is notable. State sanctioned killing is controversial and cases therefore notable. Domminico (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she is technically a Briton would make it a little notable. Heywoodg (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as Linda Carty. Given that men are much more likely to murder or be executed, I think a case could be made that the circumstances around this individual make her notable. She is female, she is British, she murdered to obtain a child, and there are reliable sources who grant credibility to the "allegedly" prefix. I know "other stuff" isn't supposed to be recognized as a proper argument, however, if every person who may have played a third of an inning in professional baseball is notable, then why isn't every person sentenced to death in the US notable (per Domminico). Location (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The grounds for nomination are "non-notable", but actually she's clearly notable.  The general notability guideline says that people are notable if they've been the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources.  Linda Carty's been the subject of full articles in the BBC and the Guardian Newspaper, and both those sources are cited in the article.  QED: she is notable. I do not agree with Domminico.  Not everyone on Death Row is notable, only those who meet the General Notability Guideline; and the US is certainly not the most industrially advanced country in the world (my money would be on Japan or Germany).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per S Marshall. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable. Racklever (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:GNG. The article will need remaning though to Linda Carty. GiantSnowman 09:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails on WP:BLP1E - not notable except for committing a crime. There is no Wikipedia page on the actual crime, so the crime itself does not appear to be notable - as such, it is unlikely that the perpetrator is notable.  None of the co-accused have pages.  Crime occurred 8 years ago and page has only recently been created to raise awareness - as such see WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, she's notable for more than just the alleged crime. She's notable for her appeal, for which reliable sources have been provided, and for Her Majesty's Government's reaction to her impending execution, for which, again, reliable sources have been provided.  And the key point is, she's also notable for passing the General Notability Guideline. I agree that this article will have the incidental side-effect of raising awareness of the United States' barbaric provisions for judicial murder, but we don't delete material just because it's embarrassing to the US.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My position is that the crime is not notable (the victim was not notable, there is no article on the crime, etc) and the perpetrator is not notable. The fact that the woman is appealing is not notable in itself (many criminals launch appeals) and the British government's reaction to the appeal does not seem to be notable or out of the ordinary compared to it's position with regard to any other British citizen convicted of a crime overseas (for instance the reaction is far more muted than that for Michael Shields).  A similar case would be that of Tracy Housel (who is not featured on Wikipedia) - a Britain who was executed in 2002 in the US after being convicted of murder.  Also, please remember that the purpose of this disussion is to reach a concensus on whether this article should be deleted.  It is not a soapbox for promoting views for or against the death penalty, or on the US in general.  Thanks - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do understand your position, and I believe it is refuted by the General Notability Guideline. I think it incontrovertible that this woman passes.  The fact that Tracy Housel is not featured would appear to be other stuff does not exist. I hold strong views on the death penalty, as do many other people.  The death penalty itself contributes significantly to this woman's notability.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But General Notability Guideline are just that, general. On WP:Notability, on the right hand side there are specific guidelines for certain topics - in this case the specific category is people/BLP etc and is available through WP:PEOPLE.  If you scroll down, you will get to "People notable only for one event" WP:BLP1E.  My position is that Linda falls into this category as other than the murder/trial/appeal/sentence, there is nothing she is notable for.  To be honest, I'm not convinced that the actual event or the appeal is notable either - a large number of people are on death row, many of them proclaim their innocence, some are British - I don't see what distinguished this case from any other one - what makes her more notable than any other Britain on death row?  I mean we both agree that just being on death row is not notable *in itself* (as per your response to Domminico) so there has to be something else - either notability of the crime, victim, appeal or something else.  I don't think the victim was notable - she is not even named in the article.  The crime is unusual but I don't think it justifies an article.  The appeal looks to be standard and the British government response seems to be minimal - I have not heard of any ministers or similar making any noise about a miscarriage of justice or similar -  198.240.128.75 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actaully, maybe merging this article into One_%26_Other might be more appropriate - this has a selected list of people on the 4th plinth - opinions? - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes it notable is that this article has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The specific guidelines (WP:PEOPLE, WP:PROF, WP:ATHLETE, WP:PORNBIO etc.) do not have the full force of WP:N. Put simply, individual WikiProjects or groups of editors interested in specific topics do not have the authority to create guidelines that overrule the GNG.  The BLP provisions are a special case, having received an enormous amount of attention, but I do not think BLP1E is relevant here.  As I said, there's the crime, the appeal, and the public plea; I think to call these things "one event" is stretching the concept beyond breaking point. I do understand that the GNG is open to criticism.  It's simplistic in the extreme, and from an individual editor's point of view it can lead to the "wrong" articles being included (or removed).  But the great benefit of the GNG is that any editor can look at a topic and decide if the criteria are met.  In other words, it's what enables editors to research and write articles without having to go through a committee process first. This is why I think meeting the GNG is a bright-line inclusion criterion and should lead to automatic keep at AfD (barring copyvios, attack pages etc.) and you'll note that the consensus appears to be with me on this.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this article is more accuratly covered by WP:N/CA as this is specifically for criminal events and the people involved in them. In section 2.2 (Criteria for inclusion of articles on participants/Perpetrators), it says that "Editors should consider creating articles on perpetrators if at least one of the following is true".  I won't paste the whole of the guideline here, but the 3 main reasons are (i) They are notable for something beyond the crime itself, (ii) The victim is a renowned world figure or (iii) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual.  (ii) and (iii) do not apply here (I think you will agree on this), so the issue is does she fall into section (i).  This section has an important sentance which is "Perpetrator notability is defined as satisfying some other aspect of the notability of persons guideline that does not relate to the crime in question."  My position is that the crime, the appeal, and the public plea are all related to the crime and so are not independant and should not be used to confer notability - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedian guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine network of rules, you can find support for any position. I think the consensus here is, correctly, that the general notability guideline should prevail and that the appeal and crime are not the same event for BLP1E purposes.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but lets not jump the gun and go for an early close - this afd has only been open for half a day and there will probably be more contributions from other editors over the next week or so. Anyway, I have put my my points across, so I am done - 198.240.128.75 (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor comment: Just to notify moved the article to Linda Carty, with correct capitalization. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  Enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the extensive international discussion, notable.  The relationship between the GNG and other criteria is confusing, and i do not agree with S marshall, but this is important over an extended period--and very widely.     DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Location (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - With special recognition of international notability. --AStanhope (talk) 03:24, 14 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.