Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hobson


 * 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    No Consensus to delete. There is no consensus below as to the crucial question of whether or not BLP1E should be applied to this article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Mark Hobson

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  —Nolamgm (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, while there are exceptions, most criminals don't qualify for articles, and I don't see any good reasons to consider Hobson an exception. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Four murders do not equal one event.--EchetusXe 12:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The murders occurred within hours of each other and were reported as a single news event. There is no need to make a technical distinction between separate "events" on that basis. The issue that BLP1E is getting at still applies here: barring rare and extraordinary circumstances the subject of the biographical article ought to actually have a body of work to discuss using biographical sources; mere involvement in a single newsworthy event does not mean a biographical article is warranted. Dominic·t 07:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - fails WP:ONEEVENT for his original murder conviction. His recent media resurrection (for want of a better word) is nothing but a passing mention about him and 50 other criminals, not significant enough to warrant his own article. GiantSnowman 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep; I think this one is much clearer than Tracie Andrews because of the legal aspects. Hobson was (as the article accurately states) one of the first defendants in an English court to be given a whole life tariff by a Judge. His reported behaviour in prison may also be considered significant. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per SamB. Crafty (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep 4 murders is enough to be notable, if necessary by IAR.    DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E does not mandate article deletion. Violation of this policy does not mandate deletion but only renaming. If the information itself is notable than it should be included. This individual passes WP:GNG as he has “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” WP:BLP1E does not require renaming. It is not about one event. It is about multiple events: the murders, the conviction, his sentence, and ongoing issue with whole life tariff. Nolamgm (talk) 19:00, 30 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.