Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger D. Craig


 * 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 merge to Trial of Clay Shaw. Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger D. Craig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since we apparently cannot simply redirect this bit player in a JFK conspiracy to the trial in which he made a minor appearance, we'll have to discuss deleting it outright first. Anyway, the trial was a farce, the book which is the only non-primary source was roundly panned, and this fellow, whatever one can dig up from primary sources, is unimportant. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Trial of Clay Shaw, and deal with anything worth keeping there. No independent notability.  Anmccaff (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of a bazillion witness called by either the Warren Commission or Jim Garrison. The conspiracy-minded get off on his testimony because he said he saw Oswald escape Dealey Plaza with a possible co-conspirator, but despite this there is no significant coverage about him in reliable secondary sources. What we are left with is a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. (I don't see anything to merge, but I'm fine with redirect/merge to Trial of Clay Shaw or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.) - Location (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   06:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The man's background and his involvement in the JFK Conspiracy Theory are sufficient grounds to warrant a separate article on himself. After all, he was an important witness in events leading-up to and during the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. It is my personal view that people should be allowed to formulate their own opinions, without undue interference in that process, especially in what is already privately well-known.Davidbena (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Privately well known? TINSK!
 * Yes, I say "privately well-known," since there has been some effort to keep the knowledge of these things out of public schools, government printing presses, newspapers, etc., therefore, the knowledge of the affairs relating to JFK's assassination has been acquired by many, many individuals chiefly through private research, and is now known largely in the private sector.Davidbena (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing is that there's nothing here which says anything beyond "he was a guy in the sheriff's office who was a bystander at the JFK assassination". Presumably you're going to want to complain about all the material that was removed, but we're going to have severe problems with the website used as a source. Mangoe (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't think that a witness who was questioned by the Warren Commission, and who was sought after by New Orleans' Attorney Jim Garrison, is worthy of a Wiki article explaining who he is and how he fits in to the JFK assassination conspiracy, whether it be theory or fact?Davidbena (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Unless he has some significance beyond those activities, he should be covered within them. As mentioned elswwhere here, this looks a good deal like WP:COATracking, with a side order of POV fork.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides the reasons I've given above, Roger D. Craig and his testimony have been written about in many books. As for POV fork, since witnesses and their testimonies differ one from the other, separate articles on them (in the JFK assassination conspiracy theory) should not be considered a "fork" of some other similar article. Each article on each individual has its own merits.Davidbena (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, so the sekret kabal mentioned above kept the TRVTH from the PVBLIC by hiding it in books, then? Wise choice. Anmccaff (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is clearly a WP:COATrack and there is zero justification for standalone articles. All of the content is currently being discussed in enough detail at other articles, in spite of the instance of the administrator who reversed the redirect. jps (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The classification of this article as infringing upon "Coatracking" is an allegation that is as absurd as I've heard anywhere, since there is no secret or hidden meaning why we have decided to write upon this man. Nothing here is construed for what it is not. Craig was an important witness in the JFK murder conspiracy theory, and deserves his rightful place in American history.Davidbena (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Trial of Clay Shaw and/or John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. No matter of what kind, he gave a testimony in court of law. There are enough adequate sources. Deleting completely would not be fair in my opinion. — usernamekiran [talk]   18:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Individual is sufficiently WP:NOTABLE and otherwise a fairly well-known figure in the assassination who participated in the Warren Commission proceedings, the Clay Shaw trial, several documentaries, and various books on the subject. Earl of Arundel (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into the trial article or the conspiracy theory article (or both)... per ONEEVENT. Not enough sourcing on the subject himself to merit a stand alone article. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, when the article was first written, we brought down plenty of sourcing, but for some reason the article was considerably cut down in size and the sourcing deleted.Davidbena (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Jim Garrison's book, which is referred to as further reading in the Craig article, besides all the different mentions of him listed there in that section, also has a picture of Craig in the office of Dallas Police Sheriff Captain Will Fritz on the evening of November 22, 1963. The picture is among all pictures published by Garrison in his book between pages 218 and 219. The photo is there because Captain Fritz denied Craig's presence in the office on that day and at that time, until the photo was revealed years later. Has this photo been ever "debunked" by the deniers of any conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy? If it has not, this would be enough reason, in my view, to keep and expand/improve this article. warshy (¥¥) 22:22, 12 April 2017 (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.