Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Sutherland


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nathan Sutherland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

IMO, this falls under WP:NOTNEWS Meatsgains (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. More important, this is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME. This is an otherwise unknown person accused, but not convicted, of a single event.  This is a biography of one arrest with trivial biographical depth. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This story seems to be getting a lot of national and international coverage. This reminds me of Elaine Herzberg which morphed over the course of the AFD into Death of Elaine Herzberg. This will probably become an article about the incident. MB 04:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRIME. We should not have a wikibiography on the alleged perpetrator of a crime who was otherwise non-notable and should be presumed innocent until trial.  The example MB cites was turning an article named for a crime victim into an article on the crime, which is unlikely to be named for the perpetrator.  EdChem (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)  Change to restructure / merge content into an article on the crime / incident, and change this article into a redirect.  EdChem (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I meant, I said nothing about the name of the new article. MB 00:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes,, my apologies. I didn't mean to misrepresent you.  EdChem (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect to an article on the crime itself - that has garnered sufficient attention for an article, with it having been covered five times by the BBC alone, and has been covered equally well in other media, such as CBS and in other sources. --  No COBOL  (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to Hacienda HealthCare rape (or similar). The event is notable, having received international coverage from the end of December to present. The individual suspected perpetrator is not, and probably shouldn't be named in the article prior to when and if a conviction is secured.Icewhiz (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with an article about the incident. WesSirius (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with an article about the incident, similar to how Nikolas Cruz, the suspect in the MSD shooting, redirects to and is covered on the article relating to the event Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Enwebb (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this can be Merged into a non-existent article, but I agree with the sentiment. So isn't the correct action Move to Hacienda HealthCare rape and fix (the majority of the present article is already about the incident and not the background of this person). That will also leave a redirect. MB 00:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes - as the event does not exist this is a Keep&Rename (or repurpose) situation. If we had the event already - then merge. Merge !votes should usually specify a target.Icewhiz (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * RENAME it Hacienda HealthCare rape and KEEP per WP:GNG.  Major national coverage of highly unusual crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I would register that the crime itself is not uncommon, but the context and outcomes in this particular instance were. Enwebb (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete a clear violation of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. It has been suggested that the contested article be merged into another specific article yet that article does not exist. But this is not where drafts are evaluated; this is the AfD process. Here we try to form a consensus on whether or not an article must be deleted, kept, merged into another, or replaced by a redirect. Not created. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I find this rather pedantic. AFD considers whether the "topic" is notable, and most of the content is about a clearly notable topic. The effort to "Rename and Keep" is less than required for most Merges. I believe those that said Merge (even though there is no existing target article) did so because they felt Merge (of the standard AFD results (Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect) is the closest choice. The votes of Merge, Keep, Rename, Move, and Restructure are all effectively "Keep the content", which should be the focus here, not the mechanics of doing so. MB 14:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you find my comments "pedantic." But suggesting deletion means finding essentially nothing worth keeping. This might be due to lack of sources verifying notability, lack of encyclopaedic value, or other reasons. Material that does not deserve to be up is not worthy of transfer somewhere else. If, however, the text is deemed to be worthy of inclusion at some point in the future, e.g. on account of being deleted under WP:TOOSOON, the text can be kept off main space in draft form and resurrected if and when it's appropriate to do so. Perhaps this is what you mean. -The Gnome (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2019 (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.