Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Torto


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Robert Torto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:PERP, there's no indication that this subject meets the guidelines for an article about the perpetrator, regardless of how much news coverage his crime and trial garnered. Further, the three firebombings (one of which resulted in deaths), took place in the same two-week period: I thus suggest that WP:BLP1E applies as well.

I do not intend to comment on whether the firebombings themselves are the appropriate subject of an article, but whether a living person who has been diagnosed with a severe psychiatric disorder and apparently judicially confined to a mental institution is an appropriate subject for an article (I also note that the article does not state whether the subject has been convicted of murder). WP:PERP counsels a negative response in this case. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 09:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Involved in a long series of attacks, so the one event claim is a bit weird. There is no exemption of article coverage for insane people. See for example Charles Manson. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:PERP for why Manson is a dramatically different case than somebody who committed 3 firebombings over the course of two weeks. If the firebombings are significant, write about them, not about the perpetrator. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that he was also involved in other attacks. Which is why he has an article about him. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A two-week spree of attacks is not more than one event. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - basic covering WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How so? I addressed why this criterion isn't met in my nomination. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you have. So why the POV pushing from you?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, garden variety hate crime, no real lasting impact or popular interest (such as in the Manson case, mentioned above). Terrible for the victims and their families of course, but Wikipedia is not a crime dossier.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC).
 * If you compare almost any crime to the Manson case you get that result. It is like comparing apples and oranges. No wikipedia is not a crime dossier but it still has articles on notable crimes such as this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 04:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Unusual crime with significant coverage. -- Green  C  03:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address the WP:BLP1E issue. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 16:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP1E isn't an arbitrary rule, it was created to protect low profile individuals from unwanted public attention. It doesn't always apply in single event situations. See BLP1E, situation must meet all three conditions. It gives an example of John Hinckley, Jr., which is very similar to this case: a crazy guy assassinates someone and becomes infamous along the way. "His role was both substantial and well documented". That is the case here, point three doesn't apply it fails BLP1E. --  Green  C  06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess WP:BIO1E is what I was looking for then. Consider Steve Bartman. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well true if the event is more significant than the perp. I'd say in this case the perp is the main focus of the event and so would be better as a perp article than an event article. Of course that is hard to say for sure since no one has written an event article, if you think it should be primarily event coverage, probably a better course than deletion would be to first create an event article than merge/redirect this to it. Or worse case do a rename of this article with refocus on the event. But all that seems like a lot of busy work since we already have a decent perp article that covers the event. -- Green  C  15:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lankiveil and WP:PERP. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E which is a stronger policy based reasoning than the keep rationales. Secret account 23:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Showuld we really have an article on a man who was found criminally insane? The only possible merit is to enable such cases to be studied together.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep (Just this side of neutral). I think the fact that he got wide coverage and got a nickname in the press seems to press in favor of him having his own article even under WP:PERP, but the coverage does not seem to have been sustained, which certainly is a strike against him. That said, WP:PERP is a guideline and not a policy, and I'm not sure how much I agree with the "sustained coverage" rationale. I think that there are many short term news items that never get revisited that still have inherent notability. I'm not sure this is one of these cases, and I think the ideal situation would be to merge this content into an article on the event. 0x0077BE  [talk/contrib] 16:08, 28 February 2014 (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.