Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Peernock


 * 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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ  21™  00:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Peernock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was prodded back in January but it was declined by User:DGG, however a recent conversation between myself and DGG agreed the articles basis for having the prod removed are not correct. While the article is ostensibly about an American whistle blower who it is actually about is Robert Peernock a convicted murderer who believes and claims he was the victim of a wide reaching conspiracy by every level of justice to have him convicted for the murder of his wife: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-10-24/local/me-242_1_man-convicted-of-killing-wife

The page itself seems to have been created by either Mr Peernock or an associate, given its reliance on http://www.freerobertpeernock.com/ which is a self-published website by Robert Peernock in prison. There are no reliable third party sources to the claims of being a whistle blower other than Mr Peernock claiming he had evidence of corruption that was so damning they murdered his wife and, using surgery, brain washed his daughter to be a puppet and appear against him for the attempted murder of her. Apart from this evidence of notability is reduced to a book by Anthony Flacco regarding the murder and trial http://www.amazon.com/A-Checklist-Murder-Anthony-Flacco/dp/0440217903/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352013251&sr=8-1&keywords=A+Checklist+For+Murder which is instead included as evidence of the conspiracy.

I don't believe evidence of notability has been firmly established and as it currently exists is instead in violation of WP:UNDUE by portraying the individual in question on the speculation they would have been a whistle blower and that the conspiracy against them is valid, rather than the supported case that they are convicted murderer without the possibility of parole. –– Lid(Talk) 07:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added some stuff, but I'm sort of piecing all of this together as I find it so it isn't really flowing all that well at the moment. There's a lot missing. I'm also concerned over the span of coverage, as almost all of what I'm finding is by the Los Angeles Times. They seem to have covered all of the biggies, but I'm not too familiar with notability for crimes. Don't we need more than just a ton of coverage from one specific paper? It's an interesting crime so I'll probably track the book down. There's the potential for notability as the Judge was asking for changes in the state law, part of which was due to Peernock having the names and contact info of his jurors in his cell. But I'm not sure if anything came of that. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It also looks like the crime was the focus of a Discovery Channel show/episode, although I'm unable to immediately find what show it was and when it aired.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Found it. It was on a show called "Prosecutors: In Pursuit of Justice". I've sourced it with a link to the TV Guide, although I'm aware that this would be a trivial source at best (TV Guide, I mean).Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is now better sourced, with Tokyogirl79's additions, plus I cleaned up the article some and reorganized it a bit for clarity. The book, TV show and heavy newspaper coverage (the Los Angeles Daily News in addition to multiple L.A. Times stories) shows notability. Passes WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The state of the article is far removed from the way it was originally, and had been for a few years, to the point that this AfD is probably no longer valid. –– Lid(Talk) 02:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - improved since nomination. Passes WP:GNG,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It received coverage from a major newspaper as well as being the focus of a TV show episode and book. I do think it'd be a good idea for at least one of us to keep an eye on the page in case Peernock attempts to vandalize it in the future.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. When user Lid proposed this for deletion, it was a two-sentence article with multiple tags. Tokyogirl79 etal have brought this article up to something of substance, with good sourcing. Doesn't matter who created it.  The article is notable now. — Maile  (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2012 (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.