Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael LaHood, Jr./Talk:Michael LaHood, Jr.

Before people tag this with Speedy Deletion, please read:

Michael LaHood, Jr. is notable because he was involved in the trial of Mauriceo Brown and Kenneth Foster. Their trial was controversial.

This article, though, is about the victim. Please keep it this way. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 19:57 2008 February 2 (UTC)
 * See also Screw Foster. Who is Michael LaHood Jr.?, which shows that others are interested in LaHood. Maybe others who knew him will add more info. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 20:01 2008 February 2 (UTC)
 * The blog you mention uses LaHood mainly as a device for a more general critique of the media's and the public's tendency to be apologetic towards killers and forget about the victims. The blog article is interresting, but doesn't mean that the article subject is notable (WP:BIO). Sadly, a lot of people are killed in Texas.Malc82 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * About your first argument: that means he can be covered in an article about the trial, not that he needs an article of his own. Malc82 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The blog you mention uses LaHood mainly as a device for a more general critique of the media's and the public's tendency to be apologetic towards killers and forget about the victims." Somewhat true, but that is mainly an implied statement. The author does end with questions about LaHood himself.
 * Personally, I think that the definition of notable should not necessarily mean "widely known". Notable simply means worthy of note, and I think that LaHood certainly is worthy of note simply because, as you pointed out, there is not a general tendency to consider the lives of those who were victimized in brutal crimes. Maybe there should.
 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia did not previously have a page with the title, so there is no harm in having this page. Wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia, so editors can be more liberal in creating pages for little-known subjects.
 * Until there is a different person with the name "Michael LaHood, Jr." this article should stay.
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 21:06 2008 February 2 (UTC)
 * The more appropriate forum for this discussion would be WP:AFD, but I hesitate to suggest this. The way I know AfD this article doesn't stand a chance there because it fails various guidelines (WP:BIO,WP:NOT and WP:HARMLESS come to mind). Malc82 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT doesn't specifically say, but I think that that applies to individuals who die from natural causes. I would agree that not every person who dies should have an article, but I do think that Michael LaHood should because his death was different.
 * The List of individuals executed in Texas page has links for every, single executed inmate as if someone was thinking that eventually all of them would have articles.
 * Some of those people do have an article, too, and one must think that the reason why is that they received a whole bunch of media attention. Well, LaHood indirectly received a whole bunch of media attention, too, so he should have an article by the same reasoning.
 * Let me look through some of the other guidelines...
 * (By the way, I appreciate that you are discussing this with me.)
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 22:04 2008 February 2 (UTC)
 * After looking through WP:HARMLESS, I would argue that that does not apply either. I definitely realize the types of pages for which that does apply, such as when someone creates a page to host their poem, etc. (As a newpage patroller, Malc82, you have probably seen similar things.)
 * I did use that argument, but only in the context of trying to assert that the subject was notable even though he is not widely known.
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 22:09 2008 February 2 (UTC)
 * « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 22:09 2008 February 2 (UTC)

Notability (people), or WP:BIO, starts with: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity', although these may positively correlate with notability." « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 22:16 2008 February 2 (UTC)

speedy declined
As the reviewing admin, I've declined the speedy, because I think there is a sufficient argument here that the community should have a chance to consider it at afd if someone wants to bring the article there. The proper course for anyone disagreeing with me is of course to bring it that, not take umbrage at my action here. I note that any other editor except the author, admin or not, could have equally removed the speedy.

That does not mean I necessarily consider the article appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think this is different from the executions in Texas. I think the individual executions in Texas individually notable, though I must say the consensus usually disagrees with me on this. The Texas events are public actions, carried out by state authority supported by federal judicial actions. They are controversial--a substantial number of US citizens, though not a majority, oppose capital punishment altogether; and the citizens of many other countries in the world have abolished it. Thus each individual event attract considerable attention, and not only in Texas. They are noticed by politicians in the Us generally, and by people elsewhere. That there are so many of them does not detract from the notability--the large number is, indeed, part of why a considerable part of the world thinks them notorious. (I use notorious rather than notable here, because the negative significance is exactly the meaning they attach to them.)

Individual murders are not usually of this nature. Most, in the US and elsewhere, lead to less drastic consequences, and therefore less public attention. Unless they for one or another reason do attract significant public attention, they are not really appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Even when they do, many of the people at Wikipedia, perhaps a majority, still do not think them important unless they have some long term public significance, or involve figures who are newsworthy for independent reasons (per the current interpretation of WP:BLP). Again, I am in generally the minority here, but the usual decision is that something very special must be shown for the murder of ordinary people to be encyclopedic, and the inclusion of most such articles is rather sharply challenged and stoutly defended--with unpredictable results in any particular instance, for we do not really follow precedent. I am not here stating what I or anyone thinks ought to be the case here, but my interpretation as best I can of what actually seems to happen, as events at this site are in fact decided by general community consensus, with all its positive and negative consequences.

So when an article is defended in good faith with a reasonable argument, let the community decide on it. DGG (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have entered the article at AfD now. Should we copy the contents of this talk page there? (I ask since I'm not sure if AfD-debaters will really read it here?Malc82 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)