Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero


 * 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. ~ fl 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Marcelo Lucero

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

Article is one sentence in length. Although there was a flurry of media coverage of this individuals death last year, I do not believe this article is notable enough Thisglad (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above Thisglad (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of reliable sources are available (current sources in the article include the New York Times, CNN, and Newsday), just no Wikipedians have made the effort to expand the stub yet. Still being discussed in the media to this day in the context of elections (one potential New York gubernatorial candidate is facing criticism for dismissing the killing as a "one-day story" in fact), hate crimes, and other recent immigrant killings in the United States. Clearly not "a flurry last year" as nom claims, just a neglected article. TAway (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per above, article doesn't even hint at possible notability. Recent media coverage does not make someone notable.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep – First, one sentence articles are not a reason for deletion. I do not believe we have mandated that a piece be so many words long before inclusion.  In fact, a vast majority of articles in hard copy encyclopedias are no more than a sentence or two.  Two, I am not sure if the nominator is saying that the event/individual is non-notable or that he/she feels the article in Wikipedia  itself is non-notable.  If the case is that the individual is non-notable, I have to disagree.  A quick Google News search, as shown here  gives more than enough reliable – creditable – verifiable – 3rd party sources to warrant inclusion here in Wikipedia.  If it is the position of the nominator that they feel that the actual article itself is unimpressive, sorry again, but that is not a valid reason for deletion.  A better reason to nominate would have been One Event.  However, I would make the argument that though this individual is only notable for the way they died, the manner of their death has sparked controversy such areas as Hate Crime and Immigration.  In this light the individual is notable.Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 19:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, a one sentence article for a so called notable person is of substandard quality, also this person has no hint of notability other than being killed Thisglad (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why not try and improve the quality rather than complaining about it? It is easy to point out shortcomings but more noble to correct the faults.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * what makes you think someone who nominates an article for deletion must try and improve the article? That's not my job, and  Marcelo Lucero is not notable Thisglad (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - In that we are not paid for what we do here, I have never considered this a job, but rather an opportunity to disemmenate information, without bias, and free of charge :-), Regarding your comment "... what makes you think someone who nominates an article for deletion must try and improve the article?"  is not that why we are here?  To make sure the imformation that is posted to Wikipedia is both informative and correct?  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

washinton123 MArcelo Lucero is a falshpoint in local and national spotlights showing the racism that is evident in todays society. Locally, in Long Island, he is still ahuge news story after 7 months. In addition local civil rights activists are comparing the Suffolk County Executive to a modern day Racist and enactor of modern jim Crow laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington123 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've proposed that this article be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per WP:CSD. One does not become notable because one is murdered. If there was more coverage on the subject other than how he was beaten and killed, such as critical responses, then this article might be worthy of coverage, and if so at a different title (such as Murder of Marcelo Lucero).— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus is gained here for speedy deletion, I'll be happy to delete it, but I'm removing the speedy tag until there's a verdict. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Ryulong's concerns have been addressed. The material concerning its significance was readily available from the sources already included in the article.  Nice to see you follow me here from the MfD, Ryulong! :-) TAway (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't, if anything, you've given reason why the violent habit(I'm not going to say sport) to do what these teenagers do is notable, you still have given no reason as to why this guy is notable. Dying doesn't make you notable, neither does recent media coverage as to the death.  If there is more media coverage in a few weeks time, he's notable, not before.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  20:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Recent" media coverage? It's May 2009 now (with coverage still ongoing), and Lucero was killed in November 2008. There are seven months of continuous coverage represented by the sources currently used in this article. Your comments illustrate clearly that you followed me here after the MfD on my userspace, didn't read any context surrounding this particular AfD, and are opposing me for the sake of harassment. TAway (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually none of those articles you posted were about Marcelo Lucero or his death incident, he was just mentioned in passing in unrelated news, this can hardly be called 'seven months of continuous coverage'Thisglad (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to article on event per WP:ONEEVENT. When we have a one event situation the way to cover it is via an article on the event, not the person. Don't know how an admin will implement that, but it is the right outcome here. Hobit (talk) 01:05, 1 June 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.