Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight


 * 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 both individuals and arguments are sharply divided. Those favoring delete stress the "fifteen minutes of fame" provision in WP:BLP. Those favoring keep cite worldwide coverage, and recurrent coverage during the 12 years this case was under appeal, and particularly the controversy on whether the defense attorney failed to properly represent his client because he believed in the man's guilt. Those are, IMO significant issues -- unfortunately the current article spends very little space on them, fails to cite much international coverage, or coverage unrelated to the "joke contest". If such citations were added, this would be a clear keep. I hope that those wishing this article kept will add such citations promptly, and rewrite the article so it does not focus on the "joke contest" but instead on the larger legal issues said to be exemplified by this case. Might be better if moved to an article about the case, rater than one biographical in form, but that is an editorial decision. DES (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Knight

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

He had his 15 minutes of fame for a contest for a good joke to tell at his execution, but he was executed without telling the joke. He's just another commonplace executed Texas inmate. Not notable enough to merit inclusion per WP:Notability. Talmage 01:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Section 1

 * Delete - I think 15 minutes of fame is about accurate; it's only covered in news stories because it's one of those "hilarious one-off" events. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia like this, and inclusion shows some serious recentism.  --Haemo 01:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, hillarious one off events or not, it illustrated to the world a harsh reality that we more than often forget, that is that in 2007 there are first world countries killing people as punishment. This case is noteworthy on multiple grounds not to mention illustrative of contemporary American society.  Definitely a keeper. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jachin (talk • contribs).
 * Comment: Your comment will be taken into consideration, but please do not let your desire to keep or delete be driven by your admittedly strong POV against the death penalty. Talmage 03:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Regarding the comment above, if you want an article about capital punishment in the USA then such articles exist. The death penalty is not, in of itself, unjust in a democracy under the rule of law and if you want that changed then lobby your congressman or stand for office, don't use wikipedia as a soap box. Nick mallory 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Resolute 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing at all notable about this person. He was even incapable of carrying out his expressed intention prior to his execution. Whilst strongly against state-sanctioned execution, I cannot support this article. WWGB 03:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, it's interesting to note that all of the above delete requests are based purely on POV / opinion on execution. The man made multi-national news over the past year and a half, as well as was a prime candidate for Amnesty International for leniency in sentence.  Further from a jurisprudence point of view the case is exceptionally interesting to law students such as myself because it illustrated a blatent miscarriage of justice based on the fact no attempt at mitigation was made by the defence attorney on the grounds that he 'believed his client to truly be guilty'.  Defence attorneys are meant to play devils advocate, regardless of what monster they're representing, so that we all may know that justice has been carried out.  In this instance it failed.  See 153/07 of Amnesty International's emergency action files for more information in that regards.  Either way, this apparent emotive response to deletion of a credible, tangible and informative article is rather unwikipedian. Jachin 04:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Prove that all of the delete opinions are based on a POV opinion on execution. If you are looking at POV, look in the mirror.  You are a major contributor of this article.  I would suspect that you are a little attached to it. Resolute 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, except he still isn't notable. Is he really that different from the rest of the Texas inmates on death row?  I don't think so.  He received some attention for his joke contest, but ultimately he didn't even deliver the joke.  Like the death penalty or not, he is simply not notable.  Merely becoming a news blurb (no matter how widely circulated) doesn't make someone notable, because ultimately he's still just a blurb, nothing more.  Had he received around the clock Paris Hilton or Jessie Davis-style coverage, perhaps, but he didn't. Talmage 04:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, please keep personal attacks out of it. My contributions emerged when I saw the deletion (check the time stamps), because I figured rather than arbitrarily erasing something from history because it doesn't sit well with a group of people, that perhaps it could be expanded on and it's quality as an article could be improved.  And Talmage, I'm not sure how much coverage he recieved in the United States, or in the south which is where your user page indicates you're from (POV anyone), but in Sydney and Australia as a whole he got a heap of media coverage leading up to his execution.  I'd recommend google searching his name, et cetera, to establish notability.  Just because you don't see the notability of an article, does not mean it's not notable, look at the requirements for notability in wiki policy for example.  This entire arbitrary deletion aspect IMHO is mooted by it.  Jachin 04:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: You should have looked into the Guide to deletion before even nominating this article, the below excerpt provides you with a solution: -


 * before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.
 * familiarize yourself with the frequently cited guidelines WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:FICT, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:NOT.
 * consider adding a tag such as,  or  instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.
 * consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
 * investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
 * first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion.  You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.


 * 103,000 gHits say it's notable. Jachin 05:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed yalbik 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply citing big numbers is meaningless. See also WP:GHITS. Morgan Wick 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think we're getting way off track here. I'm well aware of deletion guidelines, however even if this article is improved drastically, Patrick Knight still isn't notable enough to merit an article.  There's no reason to distinguish him from the thousands of others who have been executed.  As far as executed criminals go, he just isn't special. Talmage 06:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, that's your opinion and you're well entitled to your opinion. However you should have followed the Wiki policies on the matter instead of immediately AFD'ing the article.  Jachin 07:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
 * If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
 * Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
 * Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a notability tag.
 * If the article is about a specialized field, use the PROJECT-NAME tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.


 * If appropriate sources cannot be found:
 * If possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context
 * If the article meets our criteria for speedy deletion, one can use a criterion-specific deletion tag listed on that page.
 * Use the prod tag, for articles which do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but are uncontroversial deletion candidates. This allows the article to be deleted after five days if nobody objects. For more information, see Proposed deletion.
 * For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the articles for deletion process, where the merits will be debated and deliberated for 5 days.


 * Delete WP:BLP, which ArbCom has determined applies to the recently dead as well, specifically states that people who are only notable due to brief short-lived press coverage like this should not be covered in their own article. Add to this that the article is horribly POV (judicial killing??) and the vast majority of what is in the article has nothing to do with why he got his 15 minutes of attention on the internet and you have a text book candidate for deletion. MartinDK 07:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's probably because much of the article was plagiarized from Amnesty International's "urgent call to action". Talmage 17:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:BLP
 * Articles about living people notable only for one event
 * Further information: WP:NOT and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
 * Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.


 * If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person.


 * MartinDK 07:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're all focusing too much on the 'last words joke' aspect of this mans life and not the criminal trial aspect. The case itself was of more import and notability, IMHO.  Jachin 07:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If he is notable for his trial then where are the sources? The only reliable sources you have given concerns the internet joke. The rest are unreliable. I am going to remove the Myspace links since Myspace is not a reliable source. WP:N, WP:RS and WP:BLP are official policy, unless you have anything better to offer than blogs and links to marginally reliable sites then the article should be deleted. MartinDK 07:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Notable. Info about him was published in many countries. --Paukrus 08:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If executed inmates have enough notability to make it on the Recent Deaths list then a page should be made, if not a personal page for an inmate, then an entry on something like "List of executions in the United States".--Theloniouszen 09:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As WP:BLP asserts, covering his death as part of a wider article on the death penalty in the US would be better. Just because he made it on the Recent Deaths list does not mean that there should be a separate article about him per my above arguments. MartinDK 10:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentAnyone can add anyone else to the list of recent deaths. That does not equate to notability. Resolute 13:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentIn fact, most of the time, we remove any entry on Recent Deaths that was deemed not notable enough to have an article via AfD. Canadian Paul 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

]]. MartinDK 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ephemera, pure and simple. Perhaps the case deserves some mention where the history of U.S. executions is mentioned.  The only way I'd alter my view is if the case led to significant legal or political change.
 * Keep. Many other executed criminals have Wikipedia articles. Zerbey 13:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't keep articles [[WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS|for that reason
 * Delete, Not notable, if his case had reached the Supreme Court, and had brought around some sweeping decision on capital punishment (either way) it might be different, but it did not even get close to that, the Court denied it certiorari. ChrisLamb 14:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not taking a stand for or against the death penalty, and I could care less about the person in the article itself, but in terms of notability, he absolutely passes WP:N. For the people who are trying to cite WP:NOT, please read it carefully...it says does not automatically qualify.  That means it does not exclude someone because they were in the news for a short period, but rather does not automatically justify someone being included.  Furthermore, there is sufficient sources for him to pass notability requirements, and the article should be kept. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was citing WP:BLP which in turn cites WP:NOT. What WP:BLP says is that brief press coverage does not in it self warrant an individual article. WP:UNDUE also applies in that regard. I would support merging parts of it (not the blantantly POV parts) into a more general article on capital punishment in the US. There is an ArbCom case about this at the moment, the majority of the arbitrators are favoring a more strict approach towards these biographies based on internet fame. MartinDK 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Unfortunately, if murder victims are notable because their deaths have been covered by multiple reliable sources, then so is he. Passes WP:N easily.  Eliminator JR Talk  15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Other stuff exists is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Routine murder victims are also not newsworthy, and sevveral memorial articles or True Crime Reports about them are deleted every week despite being in news reports. A murderer got convicted and executed. This is not a landmark case, and no evidence shows effects on society or culture or the legal system, or which were noted by commentators, playrights, sociologists, beyond simple news coverage. Newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper or a crime blog, and things that are newsworthy, or "water-cooler stories" like the condemned man asking for a good joke to tell as his last words, are of only transitory interest. Edison 15:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is also NOT a reason for deletion. It's an essay, not policy -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Essays may be cited in deletion debates. Essays become guidelines by this way, because it eventually may show that the essay reflects consensus and practice. There is no formal procedure for an essay becoming a guideline, such as a vote or ratification by some legislative body. It is also not a valid reason for keeping an ephemeral article, as I said. WP:NOT is, however policy "News reports. Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to appropriately contextualize events. Additionally, extant articles should not carry daily reports of things such as game summaries of sporting events or musical performances by a band or group unless the events themselves are noteworthy. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews". 15:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Edison
 * Delete. The crime and court case had no significant impact; they raised no significant questions, are not addressed in law journals, and had only minimal coverage at the time.  Death row convicts have no inherent claim to notability.  Thus, the only "claim" to notability is a death-row grandstanding event that didn't actually happen.  Media coverage or not, I'm simply unable to see how WP:N can be stretched to include someone known for not telling a joke.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 15:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only is this subject not worthy of an article, the attempt to make his case notable is plagiarized from Amnesty International's "urgent call to action". Talmage 16:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You say he fails notability. Please explain how he fails the 4 criteria of WP:N? -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We have been over this before today but okay. The only source given that does not concern the internet fame part is a link to Amnesty International. That article is neither impartial nor reliable given the clear agenda of Amnesty International in this case. In addition to that you have not been able to provide any further reliable sources as I discussed above. Furthermore WP:BLP supercedes WP:N in this case so notability is not only a matter of satisfying WP:N but also of satisfying WP:BLP in particular the part of it I pasted above. MartinDK 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * News just in: Patrick Knight died two days ago. BLP does not apply to him, as his notability (if it amounts to that) stretches for the sixteen years from sentencing to execution, and sources cover him from many angles.  I still agree with you regarding WP:NOTNEWS being an important consideration as Edison explains above, and if this article is kept, it would be appropriate to not included the names of the victims, as that is what BLP is for. John Vandenberg 18:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As seen here ArbCom is divided on this issue. Based on that it is not wrong to say that WP:BLP could be applied to the recently dead. I do, however, agree after thinking some more about this that since we aren't talking about blanking or speedy deletion the main arguments are to be found outside of WP:BLP even if the part that I pasted above sums it up quite nicely. The important thing is that WP:N is not a sufficient condition to keep biographies, that has become increasingly clear over the last few weeks. There are also relatives of the victims, we should not be a memorial where those relatives can see this convicted murderer be defended and immortalized based on a simple internet stunt even if it got substatial media coverage. The murder case, tragic as it was, was not unusual neither was the trial. MartinDK 06:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've removed the copyvio of the amnesty.org report. John Vandenberg 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete nn person, got what attention is usual for executed murderers- his "joke" idea got a little more attention than usual but not hugely more, still way less than Karla Faye Tucker. Carlossuarez46 18:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive.  I am a firm believer that most bios should be allowed to remain. All bios need is sources and a minimal standard of notability.  The larger Wikipedia is the best of a resource it is. One million articles is much better that one hundred thousand articles. It should be a source of information on the most trivial matters to the most important. Callelinea 19:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It just seems to me that any debate on AfD pages should pertain to whether or not the article follows standards established as policy, not whether the policy is what you would like it to be. It seems like those debates should take place on the policy page discussions, but that's just my opinion.  The other problem is that in the future, these obscure articles will not be maintained very well and are very susceptible to deterioration, vandalism, or false information. Talmage 20:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether or not Michael Knight eventually produced a joke is not the only consideration to be given when deciding worthwhile notability. Such a unique and inventive proposal of a Death Row inmate garners sufficient interest. His good faith efforts in receiving "last word submissions" are well documented and easily verifiable. However, my opinion would differ for any future "copycat" inmates with a substantially similar proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.244.6 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Deciding on what counts as ephemera does not really have any guidelines yet, so I guess it's being decided by the idontthinkitsimportant/idothinkitsimportant ratio.    I think the above anon gives a possible basis for this one--it seems that this is distinctive enough to remain widely known.  DGG 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone was executed in Texas? Say it isn't so! Give it a week and nobody will even remember this guy. DreamGuy 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which is why if this AfD doesn't pass right now, I suspect it would in a few months. This guy just isn't notable, but perhaps the news blurbs will temporarily stay what I suspect will be his eventual Wikipedia execution. Talmage 00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This recent story regarding the joke has been well reported, therefore this is notable. If something was notable once, then it remains notable even if it is less well remembered in the future.  Notability does not decrease with time. Freakchild 03:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree with your premise that the story is notable now. My point was that deletion would likely prevail in the future because many of the people recommending that the article remain do so because of recent media blurbs.  However Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOT).  Once the dust settles I believe the AfD request will be seen more objectively since it will be easier to put the subject's relevance into proper perspective. Talmage 21:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Section 2
Comment. He (his antic) has certainly received a burst of news reports. Whether the article stays should hinge on whether someone can find reputable sources providing commentary beyond just reporting. My gut feeling says that such sources will exist, but google isn’t providing them for me. --SmokeyJoe 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - High amount of media coverage specifically about this person. --Oakshade 03:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are enough reliable sources to make this a viable article. Capitalistroadster 07:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. For several different reasons - 1: The 'joke' matter - 2: The biased way of the defense which has prompted AI's involvement - 3: entrance into pop culture as subject of a rap song ... if that isn't enough ... Alpine-helmut 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable.  (JosephASpadaro 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment. Above I asked for a keep, but I personally would be OK with deletion if there was a paragraph for him detailing the "joke" thing on something like List of Executions in the United States.--Theloniouszen 20:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sure that could be done. The issue here is that he has a separate article. If this was merged into a more general context many of the problems discussed here would not exist. MartinDK 20:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I read a short news article on his execution and went to Wikipedia for more information. An article about him was present and of decent quality. While Wikipedia should not be an indiscriminant information repository, the article is valid, and it seems to me like people want his article deleted just because he was a murderer and they don't want him to have any 'fame' - not a good enough reason by far to delete the article. yalbik 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEEP''' THIS STORY BECAME NATIONAL NEWS. just today i was reading on the death penalty and i rememberd hearing about this guy and I came for wiki for more information. I say Keep. Its News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.123.164 (talk • contribs)
 * I say read WP:NOT. It's policy. MartinDK 18:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused as to how this doesn't merit notability. According to WP:Notability:
 * Significant Coverage - Check.
 * Sources - Check (plenty of external links, I've checked a few and they check out).
 * Reliable - Check.
 * Independent of the Subject - Check (some fail this, but most are OK).
 * Someone please explain to me how this is WP:Notability violation and not people trying to keep a criminal from getting more than his "allotted" 15 minutes of fame. I don't particularly like the idea of keeping articles like this, but can see no encyclopedic reason not to, other than POV, which is not a good reason. yalbik 22:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability. Resolute 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Resolute, my point exactly. yalbik 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should actually read the linked section. Morgan Wick 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I do much of my research on the Death Penalty and yet find it difficult to find much information on the cases outside of Wikipedia and news blurbs. What is sometimes covered only in a paragraph elsewhere is frequently covered in depth here.Brian Waterman, MS, CDP 00:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC) — Brian Waterman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, this story is now up to 500 google news hits, and there are at least three news archive results that covered this before the recent "joke" story erupted. John Vandenberg 03:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hey, since you are supposedly my sockpuppet, why in the world are you voting to keep this article? --Talmage 05:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm schizophrenic and so are you! :-) John Vandenberg 12:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Knight has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Not only did every major newspaper and television network in the country pick up Knight’s story, but so did newspapers on at least four other continents, meaning it received attention on a global scale.  Performing a quick internet search, I turned up coverage in England, Australia, South Africa, and China, among many, many others.  Consider that China is often criticized for censorship of the press, and the fact that a short search for Knight coverage turned up in China makes his story’s reach that much more impressive.  Furthermore, the story’s reach extended beyond syndicated articles, translating into columns and pop cultural references (rap songs, satire), suggesting it has hit a real nerve.  I personally found Knight’s case very compelling, even though I am neither pro- or anti-death penalty.  A couple of weeks ago I came to Wikipedia to learn more about Knight and was disappointed when I found nothing, so I am happy an entry has finally been posted.  A Knight entry might definitely prove beneficial for various Wikipedia users in the future, on moral, political, social, legal and cultural grounds, wherever they stand on Knight.  The entry definitely should be kept, although the point of view could use some work to make it more neutral.  Keep!JimS0601 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 2:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC) — JimS0601 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Because it would be gay not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.44.129 (talk • contribs)

Is this AFD even legitimate? I do not believe it to be so, at all.
Considering this isn't a vote, allow me to illustrate my purposes for my initial strong keep vote in more detail. According to WP:Notability this article's subject had significant coverage, plenty of sources, highly reliable at that, and independant of the subject. Thus it clearly meets the notability guidelines. Further I wish to argue that this AFD is moot and invalid on the grounds that NONE of the actions required per the AFD policies were carried out. The article was immediately and arbitrarily added to AFD with no apparent merit. So prima facie, this AFD is flawed, faulted, and should be removed. It is clear from the original AFD reason that this delete request is POV based, and POV fuelled. The case was highly noteworthy, especially to us law students and people interested in jurisprudence, the death penalty, or miscarriages of justice in relation to the mitigation phase of capital crime cases. The article has a crapload of sources. And the AFD was made for the wrong reasons without following a SINGLE AFD GUIDELINE. Why is this matter still being discussed? Jachin 09:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Futile wikilawyering. Also, you may have noticed that you are the only one still debating this. MartinDK 10:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no need for the Comment flag if this isn't a populus vote. I appreciate what you're saying, however I believe that following Wikipedia policy is NOT wiki 'lawyering', and I'm sure most editors would agree on that one.  I'm not the 'only one still debating this' because it hasn't been addressed.  And I do believe this IS an open debate.  Or am I not allowed to contribute because I have an issue with the legitimacy of this AFD? Jachin 11:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy was followed. However, there are very few hard rules of Wikipedia.  Many guidelines are offered as suggestions, when appropriate.  There is no room for lawyering because there are no binding rules.  It is you who seems fueled by POV, plagiarizing Amnesty International propaganda as factual content for the article.  If you believe every executed murderer whose case is of no legal significance (as evidenced by the Supreme Court's 7-2 refusal to even consider the case) and whose crimes themselves do not merit notability (as opposed to say Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh) then by all means start creating thousands of new articles.  Even more disturbing is your accusation on our talk pages that Jayvdb is my sockpuppet simply because we both objected to your blatant POV plagiarism.  I know you enjoy flaunting your status as a law student (perhaps a la Essjay), but enough with the wiki-lawyering. Talmage 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Policy was followed? You mean you put it up for arbitrary deletion, on the grounds that he'd 'had his 15 minutes of fame', your statement is clear and up the top of the page mate.  I don't think there's any room for denial of that one.  Cases can have merit on various grounds, in this instance it was the lack of mitigation.  For capital punishment to go ahead, there must be proof that the person is too great a risk to society even within the confines of a gaol cell.  This is taken with a pinch of salt by international jurisprudent observers on the grounds that ten to fifteen years pass on most capital cases where the prisoner committs no further crimes within gaol, and often shows a complete change of personality being taken out of the familiar criminal element of society in which most dwell.  Thus, it's interesting to note that unlike other capital cases where there's no need under the legislation to execute the prisoner on the grounds that mitigation has developed over the ten to fifteen years incarceration they're given, this individual was given no grounds for mitigation at all prima facie.


 * Okay, look. I can talk until I'm blue in the face about the notability of this case from a legal point of view, but I think I'm pretty much talking to a brick wall.  You don't want it here because he's 'had his 15 minutes' and 'isn't notable'.  I want it here because his case is very notable, and as obiter he pulled mass publicity from his joke contest.  Let's agree to disagree and let the rest of the debate continue from other editors.


 * From a brief overview of the debate so far, it's broken into two parties. The 'Yes it's notable, .' followed by 'No it's not notable.' with no backing evidence other than opinion.  These are finite keystrokes of my keyboard that could be expended on improving other articles rather than dealing with narrow minded southern state American pro-execution right wing types who're far too set in their way to take a step back and view something impartially.  (And yes, I believe all of the above criterion is what grounds you on your view on this matter and binds you to such a narrow scope of understanding of the matter.)  Jachin 04:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that you still insist on considering this deletion debate a political matter (something that we do not do here on Wikipedia) and implying that Talmage AfD'ed the article for political reasons I would suggest that you take this to ArbCom instead. Also, dealing with narrow minded southern state American pro-execution right wing types who're far too set in their way to take a step back and view something impartially. is once again a clear personal attack. You obviously have learned nothing from your previous blocks and warnings (yes, I know how to find them even when you delete them from your talk page). Enough now. Good luck. MartinDK 08:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think ArbCom will take it, if there haven't been any steps in the dispute resolution process followed. Morgan Wick 17:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Dammit, you had one of the best arguments going right up to the point where you made a personal attack. It would have been great if you left that out.  Now, it's pretty much going to be ignored just for the "narrow minded southern state American pro-execution right wing type" comment.  Rcrabtree2002 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite, and for the following reasons: 1. He views Wikipedia in legalistic terms, when there are very few binding rules.  2.  His argument for notability depends on his claim that the trial was significant.  It wasn't and this has been demonstrated repeatedly.  3.  Claiming the AfD discussion is inappropriate has been debunked since a significant number of people have voted for deletion.  Even if the article is kept, a frivolous nomination would not have very many people supporting its deletion.  4.  He views my AfD nomination as part of a political agenda, and has accused someone else of being my sockpuppet for removing POV propaganda that he plagiarized from Amnesty International.  I would point out however that it was Jachin who was previously blocked for using sockpuppets to consensus stack. Talmage 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The current sources (external links) are: 1.	A letter from Death Row, by Patrick Knight. 2.	Amnesty International, call for urgent action on Patrick Knights case (153/07) 3.	Daily Mail, UK, 'Gallows Humour as Death Row inmate wants a joke to be his final statement. 4.	Reuters, 'Man set for execution wants to die laughing.' 5.	China Daily coverage 6.	FoxNews, 'Inmate set for death plans joke as last words' 7.	Follow-up coverage 'Executed inmate delivers sober last joke' in The Australian 8.	CNN article 9.	Alleged 'copy' of Patrick Bryan Knights criminal file 10.	In Cold Blog 11.	St. Louis Today Columnist's 'I think I need a vacation — and here's the evidence' My quick assessment these sources:

1.	primary & self-published 2.	Co-temporary, thorough summary of the facts. Lacks commentary, so is a primary source. 3.	Newspaper report (primary), generating only two comments (not significant). 4.	Newspaper report without commenary 5.	Reports of comments by Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons. Notability is implied by the fact that an official spokesperson has made public comment. 6.	A simple cotemporary report including comments by the subject himself. 7.	Newspaper report without commentary 8.	Essential facts and statements by the subject. 9.	Primary document 10.	Someone’s Blog. Blogs are not normally considered sufficiently reputable a source to demonstrate notability. 11.	A commentary piece, ordinarily undeniably a secondary source, but this one makes only passing comment on the subject among several news stories, and the comment is weak and subtle. The coverage given to the subject by this secondary source is small.

The article is well sourced. There doesn’t seem to be an excess of original research. The crux here seems to be WP:N. The controversy section of the article could be seen as demonstrating notability. Unfortunately, the controversy is not properly referenced. The quotes attributed to (supposedly?) important people (victim's rights advocate Andy Kahan; Randall County Sheriff Joel Richardson), if verified, demonstrate some level of notability. The context of the quotes will be important. Were they muttered that afternoon in the pub, or spoken on live TV?

I guess that the execution of Patrick Knight is notable enough for wikipedia, though barely. I think that better evidence of notability, beyond external links #5 and #11, could be found right now. Therefore, I say keep. --SmokeyJoe 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Take into account SmokeyJoe that the main bulk of this article has been deleted post AFD mention and is going to have to be written up by another editor at some time. Especially in relation to the trial, which IMHO is the most notable facet of this matter. Jachin 04:42, 5 July 2007 (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.