Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert H. Richards IV


 * 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 and rename to Trial and sentencing of Robert H. Richards IV. Overall consensus is for article retention, and for the page to be renamed. North America1000 04:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert H. Richards IV

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:BLP1E -   Cwobeel   (talk)  04:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck duplicate !vote. The nomination itself is considered your !vote. North America1000 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The individual in question has several events, not just one. It is alleged that he sexually molested his 18-month-old son beginning in 2005. In 2007 he was accused of molesting his 3-year-old daughter, for which he was indicted in 2008 and pleaded guilty in 2009. In 2010, he apparently admitted the molestation of his son during a probation lie-detector test. In 2014, his ex-wife filed a lawsuit against him for the damages to the children. I find it hard to classify a series of incidents that cover a decade-long period as "one" event. In addition, this story has received national coverage from Forbes, CNN, CBS News, etc, and international coverage. The Attorney General of Delaware was compelled to make a comment on the sentencing of Richards. This is clearly notable and clearly meets the requirements of BLP. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Refactor to an article on the case, rather than a BLP. Yes, this person has been convicted of some pretty horrific crimes.  But at the root of it it's all still WP:ONEEVENT, his notoriety comes from the oddly lenient sentence he received and all the subsequent coverage of other allegations has come from that.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Oppose. This article contains sources which clearly mention more than one event about the individual. It would comply if the sources not in line with this were simply removed. Also this is a an article about a very wealthy and powerful person concerning events which are of public interests so the question of deletion so soon makes me think that the interests of the parties initiating a claim for deletion are not completely of a moral nature. Ankit255(speak to me) 5:30, 10 May 2015(UTC).
 * — Ankit255 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose. The article contains information of enormous public interest, especially when viewed in the context of current sociopolitical events surrounding the so-called '1% vs. the 99%'.  Furthermore, the article (as currently written) gives insight to multiple events (demonstrating a pattern of behavior) that are corroborated by multiple references.  Taken together, the article clearly meets the BLP standards and should be preserved.  [As an aside, the speed with which the AFD was initiated is beyond suspicious.]Joshuafrazier (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * — Joshuafrazier (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose. As previously mentioned the article meets the BLP requirements.Martinyearly (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As previously mentioned the article meets the BLP requirements. Stop deleting this page, this information needs to be out in the open.67.6.156.198
 * (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC) — 67.6.156.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Oppose. As previously mentioned the article meets the BLP requirements. Keep this page up. Fmefleh (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * — Fmefleh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Rename and redirect to something like trial and sentence of Robert H Richards, it's not a life story, it's about the trial, conviction and sentencin . Govindaharihari (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - In this case I think Richards meets the requirements of WP:PERP because of the discussion his light sentence spurred. There are lots of published (not just blogs) opinion pieces about it, including lawyers' comments . I would also accept the article being renamed to something like "Trial of Robert H. Richards" in line with Trial of Michael Jackson etc. although I don't feel strongly either way on the name. James086 Talk  10:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete This article makes no effort to cover his life story, solely focusing on his trial, and would easily fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Clawstrider (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC) — Clawstrider (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - Clearly enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here, since reliable sources have argued that not just the crime, but the light sentence as well are notable and deserving of broader discussion. Sources like this (of which there are many) make it clear that this person is notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Has enough reliable sources and the rest of his life can be added in by another user. Moonchïld9 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename and redirect as per others above. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets BLP and has come up more than once I see. Should be included as separate page. BrotherPanny (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * — BrotherPanny (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep, despite threats (including legal threat and page blanking). Subject meets WP:PERP.  Mini  apolis  23:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Refactor but keep, and redirect to the article about the case. I would also consider as a second choice a full-fledged keep, because it's definitely possible that he could be notable in and of himself. Red Slash 23:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Roughly 29% of the current article is about the unusual sentencing, so a Keep argument on that basis is very weak. This reeks of emotion-based POV pushing, an attempt to use Wikipedia to publicly shame someone for his shameful deeds, not unlike the TV show To Catch a Predator. A large segment of the population gets something from that sort of thing, but it is not Wikipedia's mission to help satisfy the public's need for vengeance. The current article should be deleted; if a viable article can be formed from a disinterested, objective reporting of issues surrounding the sentencing, that's a separate issue. It would make no sense to keep the article in the hope that it can be transformed into such an article, since there is simply not enough there to start with. (Note, I had no knowledge of this case until about an hour ago and am not invested in the issue one way or the other.) &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep/Rename Coverage of this has been widely open and keeps coming back. Plus the unusual sentencing would lead toward inclusion. I believe keeping, but maybe with a rename of matter may assist in framing it more properly. Ozzyland (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Acc. to WP:NOTABILITY, perpetrators of crimes are not notable per se. The conditions listed there for notability are not met by this case. See: Notability_(people). The allegations that this person is getting off because he is rich, if worthy of a WP article, would belong in an article on fairness in the justice system, not about the individual in question. If he is treated differently because he is rich, then richness is the issue, not him as an individual, and surely there are many, many other examples that could be used to make that argument. LaMona (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- notability is evident from the many sources currently used in the article and from the others available that aren't currently being used. It's not BLP1E, because there are several distinct "events" here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename possibly to "Trial and sentencing of Robert H Richards". There seem to me to be certainly enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, but it is all about the crime and sentence rather than about the person so the article should be refactored to be about that. Davewild (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Trial and sentencing of Robert H. Richards (keeping a redirect). The case is clearly notable, but Richards' life story is not what what the article is about and the title should reflect that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. The article details a series of events, not a biography.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:43, 20 May 2015 (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.