Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knight (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  So Why  22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Patrick Knight
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject is not notable per WP:BIO. When this article survived previous AfD last year, contributors insisted the case was notable and the article could be improved. The article is full of unreferenced claims and there is no evidence that this case was ever legally significant. Subject appeared in news articles prior to his execution because of his intent to tell a joke at his execution. No joke was ever told, and the subject only garnered brief publicity, and does not merit an article. Talmage (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC) *Weak Delete This is an example of recentism and of unfair weight given to people with contemporary media coverage. An attention-seeking murderer might have interested the media for a little while, but the memory will fade in time. On the other hand, I do believe Wikipedia should be comprehensive and the great advantage is that it can include stuff that isn't included in any other encyclopedia. This, however, is pushing it, we need to think about whether anybody not associated with the case will be seeking this information in ten years or so. Attention-seeking criminals are not that uncommon, and neither are people solely on the basis that they got the death penalty. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   —Talmage (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in spite of the article's numerous issues. While it is undeniable that the Patrick Knight case was newsworthy at the time, the question is really whether the information about the subject is still notable enough to now be worthy of being preserved in an encyclopedia. I'm inclined to say yes, because Knight has been one of the more notorious criminals in the 2000s, if only because of his plan to tell a joke as his last statement. Yes, the article is a mess -- a wealth of unreferenced information that could be original research for all we know, given the fact that there are exactly two sources for the numerous paragraphs. Yes, it is almost told as a narrative -- this version would be better as a chapter in a book rather than an encyclopedia article. But those are things that can be improved, and while the case may not have been legally significant by establishing precedents, it was certainly significant enough to prompt a tremendous amount of coverage in newspapers and on television across the nation and even in other countries. This is not a run-of-the-mill criminal case which will be forgotten right away; it was in the news for well over a year, after all. The "Controversies" section underscores the significance; if we could just get citations for all those quotes the article would be improved greatly. With a lot more references added and  significant changes to certain sections to end neutrality disputes, this article could turn out fine. Thus, I say "keep." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I would just say that in 16 months, the page hasn't been improved. Most importantly, I think WP:NOT and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information very much apply in this case.  Talmage (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't around for the first nomination, but if the page hasn't been improved in 16 months then someone should try to improve it by getting some sources. And I will reiterate that the subject of this article was heavily covered for a year and a half, inspiring much controversy. Furthermore, I disagree with you and believe that it is not simply news; therefore neither of those policies apply. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the legal qy is also notable, so this is more than NEWS. There is no deadline in WP for improving articles. DGG (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment My main point is that there was no legal controversy, or at least no more than results from any capital case. The sole significance is of a joke that was never told.  He was not a notorious criminal.  John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, or even Karla Faye Tucker are infamous, but Patrick Knight isn't even in the same league of notability.  He's a typical Texas inmate put to death with the exception of brief publicity garnered from a contest to find a joke that was never told.  Should there be a Wikipedia page for every executed criminal in Texas?  I'm not sure there's enough space on the server for that, considering someone is executed nearly every ten minutes in Texas. Talmage (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, there should not be an article for every inmate executed in Texas, but that doesn't mean that this one should be deleted. While he was not as notorious as the serial killers you listed, he was certainly notorious enough to generate well over a years' worth of heavy coverage in the media, which eventually sprawled over into the realm of satire. It is one of the most noteworthy executions this decade, and as from an inclusionist perspective I feel this article should not be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There was coverage only for a brief period of time. Please cite examples of how this sprawled into the realm of satire.  This is documented nowhere on the page, and I can't find any reference to it and can't find any coverage related to this guy except right before and right after his execution, as is typical with all who are put to death in America.  Talmage (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately I am unable to cite any specific examples of its portrayal in satire, although I do recall satirical columns about it. However, I want to reiterate that the case was heavily documented in the news throughout his appeals process, so the coverage is out there. Now, I would like to say that while we both have discussed the subject's notoreity, notoreity is a pretty subject thing, so I think we should leave that out of the rest of this discussion. In addition, I believe that your claim that the case had no legal significance or controversy beyond the typical death penalty case is untrue. The section in this article on lack of mitigation, which you have repeatedly removed, is indeed original research, but it's also what establishes this case as legally significant. If there are indeed third-party sources out there which could provide similar information about the case, it would in my opinion make the case legally significant enough to easily end this debate. Unfortunately that is not the way things are. I would like to offer a suggestion. Perhaps we should move this article so the subject is the case (presumably Knight v. State of Texas or something similar) and not the criminal. Of course, that would depend on the lack of mitigation information, which is likely to stay out of the article as original research until someone can come up with the references to back it up. Regardless, I remain opposed to deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not news, and while this individual may have been notable if he had followed through with his plan to make a joke, since he didn't, the article is nothing but news. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every person executed, only the notable ones, and while this person was in the news a lot, that does NOT mean he is notable enough to warrent a Wikipedia article.  Theseeker4 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that if a criminal is in the news across the world for such a long time the person, or at least the case is (I will reiterate my proposal to move rename the article after the case), they become a notable part of the public consciousness. Take, for example, the Scott Petersen case. There wasn't really anything too notable about the case except that it caught national and perhaps international attention and was covered heavily in the media throughout. There is a Wikipedia article on Scott Petersen, in spite of the fact that his trial did not spark an legal controversy and really was not notable except for the fact that it was heavily covered in the media. Petersen is not more notable than Knight; the fact that his inclusion in Wikipedia has never been disputed is a double standard.  If the Knight article is deleted, I will nominate the Petersen article for deletion as well on that basis. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * After some quick internet research, I found multiple news results including ones from outside the US and I think it does assert notability. I hate to change my stance so easily, but I just didn't look this one through properly; will change to weak keep, however, the article needs to be completely re-written and more references added (search Google News Archives and use the "NOT" parameter for the word coach). If you want help, I've got nothing much else to do on Wikipedia, so I can help you with this one. And you are going to be accused of WP:POINT if you nominate Scott Petersen for deletion. The DominatorTalkEdits 06:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps I would be accused of WP:POINT, but wrongfully so, I think. My goal would not be to make a point; it would be to make sure that articles are not held to different standards unfairly after being nominated for deletion. Surely you would not say that articles should be held to double standards unfairly? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I see no reason why an encyclopedia, especially a non-paper one, shouldn't preserve information like this.  There will be less interest in it as time goes on but a reader ten years from who's researching issues related to the death penalty might come upon a reference to Knight and want to know more. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would disagree. The reason being, Knight's case was not legally significant, and his media attention was solely related to a publicity stunt.  In response to a previous point, I don't think this is much of a comparison to Scott Peterson.  Peterson's case dominated the news and is therefore culturally significant.  Hours of coverage were spent analyzing his case each day on the cable news shows.  This is not the case with Knight.  He received a few blurbs after announcing his joke contest.  Neither his crime, his case, nor his joke contest received significant national coverage.  His joke contest was widely reported, but only briefly with little detail.  He was not subject to the same type of continuous round-the-clock detailed analysis as Scott Peterson.  You will find many Google hits, but most articles are essentially the same syndicated story, stating either his intent to hold a contest, or his failure to follow through during his execution.  On the grounds that he attained only minor notoriety for a publicity stunt, I believe this article should be deleted.  Furthermore, he never had a household name like Scott Peterson, but is just known as "that murderer who was going to tell a joke".  If I mentioned Scott Peterson, most people would know instantly whom I was talking about, but this is not true for Patrick Knight. Talmage (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps Scott Peterson was more of a household name, but the basic facts for both murderers are the same: Each was a murderer, sentenced to death, whose trial, while not legally significant, was heavily covered in the news. The degree to which it was covered is a somewhat subjective decision on your part, Talmage. But I will not actually nominate the Scott Peterson article for deletion because I know that people will cite the same things you did just now as a reason for keeping, and likely accuse me of WP:POINT. It's a shame that a double standard such as that would exist if and when the Patrick Knight article is deleted and the Scott Peterson article stays -- but I'm not here to stir up trouble, just to offer my thoughts. I've presented my explanation of why this article ought to be kept thoroughly, and I truly have no more to say on the subject.  Therefore, I will extricate myself from this discussion and leave the rest to other users who wish to post their opinions, and to the administrator who will decide whether or not to delete. I appreciate the civil discussion, everyone. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is wrong.  Knight's trial was not heavily covered in the news.  Degree is everything and ultimately everything in life except mathematics is subjective.  Talmage (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (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.