Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Lee Row


 * 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. As the original nominator, I am changing to weak keep and will be WP:BOLD and close this, since there is only one other delete vote and there is obviously NOT going to be a consensus to delete, after 16 days. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Robin Lee Row

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a newly created article about a death row inmate. I am not sure whether or not this falls under WP:BLP1E, so I will take this to AfD. Right now, I am leaning weakly to delete, with the possibility of creating the "event" article, but I am definitely open to reconsideration on this. Safiel (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Typically, capital murder cases receive so much WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over a significant period of time that they are not a single event that just comes and goes in the news. As death row goes on for many years, there is news coverage of appeals, etc. This case, besides being covered in news outlets, was also featured on The New Detectives and very likely other shows. Hellno2 (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:PERP currently does not make an exception for those sentenced to death or even those who have been executed, so we're supposed to balance WP:GNG with WP:NOT#NEWS. At some point, this becomes a judgment call. Relatively substantial book coverage here. Location (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS is against routine news, that being stuff that is reported every day and has no long term coverage. A triple homicide resulting in a death sentence, leading to the state's only woman on death row, is far from routine. This case has resulted in news coverage, book coverage (as you've shown), and an appearance on half an episode of a long running TV show that discussed the case in detail 12 years after the fact (and very likely other programs as well). It is hard to argue against the notability of something like that. The worst thing about this article is that the creator did a poor job of providing references. Hellno2 (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that WP:NOT#NEWS only applies to "routine news". I place more emphasis on the phrase that includes "enduring notability". In 2011, there were 12,664 homicides in the US. I imagine that most of them had some news coverage about the event, the capture of the perp or perps, the pre-trial motions, the trial of the perp or perps, the sentencing of the perp or perps, the appeals of the perp or perps, and, in some cases, the execution of the perp or perps. In one sense, this is routine crime coverage. I agree that it is unusual for a woman to be sentence to death, but it is even more unusual for a woman to actually be executed. Once Category:Executed American women can be applied, then I think there is a better argument for keep. Location (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just be aware, this article can be sourced by more than just news. It can be sourced by the book you pointed out (and perhaps many more books). It can be sourced by the TV show 12 years after the fact that I mentioned (and likewise, perhaps some others). In all, the subject has quite a diversity of sources. Hellno2 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Of the 12,664 homicides,only 1382 involve 2 or more victims. I can't find figures for 3 victims, but it would be a smaller proportion of that. I suggested some years ago, and still think that we should consider homicides as notable above a certain number of victims, because thats what the public and the press does also, and that press and public attention is what we're supposed to go by in WP:N. As a way of sorting out which ones we do cover, I continue to think it would have advantages over the vague qualifications in not news, which can be interpreted any way you please.  I agree with the principle there, but it needs some objectivity.  DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Per p. 25 of this report, 3.7% of all homicides in the US in 2008 (14,224 in the report mentioned previously) involved 2 victims (~526), 0.5% involved 3 victims (~71), 0.2% involved 4 victims (~28), and 0.1% involved 5 or more victims (~14). Given that a google search for "quadruple homicide" reveals that most of those events do not receive coverage outside of the local area, I think I would be reluctant to support a guideline that sets a particular number of victims as an objective standard for inclusion. (Similarly, I seem to recall a discussion that rejected automatic inclusion for people who were executed.) Coverage in reliable sources is a prerequisite for notability, so I think our focus should be on setting objective guidelines on various aspects of the coverage as WP:EVENT has attempted to do. In my opinion, biographical articles like this revolve around one or two particular events and, therefore, should be held to the standards set forth in WP:EVENT which are a bit more objective than WP:NOT#NEWS. Might be a good discussion for Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Location (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper  |  76  00:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - True crime BLP-1E. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - sourced, notable subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The "keeps" have cited actual policies here that favor keeping; the "deletes" have not gone into such detail. I like those comments that say that there are a variety of different sources (news, book, TV). Dew Kane (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2013 (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.