Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintin Jones (prisoner)


 * 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 keep. Keep and rename Missvain (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Quintin Jones (prisoner)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is virtually no coverage of this person other than what can be described as WP:ROUTINE coverage of a crime that occurred, and then the punishment inflicted. The only one source that is potentially helpful for notability is the Guardian source - but even still, it's only coverage of his plea to not be executed - it's not a biographical source. Regardless of something being a national/international news source, coverage of crimes/executions is still routine coverage and does not provide any significant biographical content - hence why this article barely has four short sentences about his life outside the crime and related things. Most other sources aside from the Guardian and CBS source are simply opinion articles that provide nothing for notability. Overall, fails the requirement for significant coverage in reliable sources that is not routine coverage of crimes or similar events and should likely be deleted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename – Rename to Execution of Quintin Jones (don't know why article name change of this was originally withdrawn in first place but I think it should be relisted). I agree with you about the biography stuff and the crime is not particularly notable. However, his execution has received international coverage and is still being reported in the UK. Controversy of racial bias, clemency petition and sentencing are quite notable in this case. I did find some additional info that I think could also be argued as somewhat notable: this is the first execution in 40 years not to feature any media witness, and the longest break in several decades between the previous state execution and this one. Ultimately, this article just needs work rather than deleting, it's badly sourced and a lot of opinion pieces that are nonsense, but there are better sources out there. I think it should be kept for now. Inexpiable (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Coverage of an execution in a country that has news known to be biased against the death penalty is by definition "routine coverage". I'm happy to change this opinion of mine if sources are provided, but unless/until then I can't begin to evaluate these "still being reported in the UK" sources. Furthermore, COVID explains both of the "notable" factoids you provide, and those are not notability - they're just trivia at their core. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The complete media absence (first time in 40 years) was not actually to do with COVID but rather a "critical error" and appears to be developing into a separate story. What about these pieces from the NY times and The Guardian:  Inexpiable (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece is one piece - and I'm still not sure that covering an execution makes it notable - we still expect routine coverage of executions even in national news when they happen. The Guardian story is written by a "freelance journalist" (which you can see by clicking their name). The Guardian is known to repost stories from freelance journalists for free to get more stories/clicks - not saying they're necessarily less reliable, but when they do so, it's hardly significant coverage of a topic by the Guardian themselves. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Last thing I'll add. Two sources from AP and Washington Post regarding the controversy as well as there being no media witnesses at the execution (an ongoing investigation is reportedly underway):  I still think it should stay. If nothing more comes of this case within the next few months then I would maybe change to delete, but right now it's too early to say, and I think the execution is notable enough and should be renamed. Inexpiable (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename It's certainly not "routine" coverage, as it became international news. A rename would make it clear it's not a biography, but instead an article about the execution (and the trials and crime that led to that), which is what gave him notability. The article is already marked with a NPOV template, covering the issues with it; it'll be resolved by someone in time, when the media coverage has died down. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep several new articles have been published since he was killed including international coverage from reliable sources which I've now added. I think it is likely there will be more published. I'm unable to think of a good name for the article except his name, since the article covers both the different cases, his execution and probably in future the impact of it. My suggestion would be to rename the article simply Quin Jones as this was the name he is most commonly known by. John Cummings (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Renaming the article to begin with Execution of does not mean any of its content needs to be deleted. You can still have info about the crime, his background, etc. Inexpiable (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to cover the execution, plus any essential background related to his crime only. This event is notable for the anomalous occurrence of the media not being present. Against the backdrop of an era of alleged botched executions and evolving/experimental execution protocol, this makes it notable enough to keep. I am concerned with the lack of neutrality in the article in its current state, which appears to be unduly slanted towards activism on behalf of the subject, e.g. (i), making a statement about 'Bryant's family' petitioning the state etc, when there is material available that points to some family members recently concurring with the conviction and sentence, and (ii), relying on sourcing from journalists who had become acquainted with him, some of them intimately. RandomGnome (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename Per Uses x and RandomGnome. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per multiple users above. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename per mutilple users above NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2021 (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.