Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sante Kimes


 * 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   Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sante Kimes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nominated on behalf of and by request of Bryan Johnson, attorney of Sante Kimes, see OTRS ticket#2011013010006192. The reason given was because the article is irreconcilably biased against Mr. Kimes. No opinion from me. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Any improperly sourced information can be fixed by editing the article. I and others have in fact already put quite a bit of effort towards rewriting it and improving the sourcing. I already suspected that persons with a conflict of interest were editing this article, and the sudden arrival of a lawyer would seem to verify that suspicion. The article is well referenced due to the efforts of the past days. Its hard to write something positive about someone who is notable for being convicted of murder, robbery, burglary, conspiracy, grand larceny, illegal weapons possession, violation of anti-slavery laws, forgery and eavesdropping. That's not bias, it is properly verified fact. Find some sources that say something positive about her and we'll happily include that to. Good luck finding them. Beeblebrox (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Tough crap if it's "biased" - she's a convicted murderer. Do a "Google" for Sante Kimes to see if she's notable. Lawyer or no, this article should stay. Doc   talk  12:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. The possibility that we take personal offence at someone is still no reason for bias. (However claiming bias isn't the same as an article being biased.) Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, that's why "biased" was in "scare quotes". Of course her lawyer would think it's biased. All WP policies apply to all articles... Doc   talk  12:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NOTCENSORED and we will of course be meeting our policies of WP:NPOV with WP:V through WP:RS. It probably is "irreconcilable" with an attorney's wishes, but that doesn't mean what they're implying it means, nor can "irreconcilable" even be applied in conjunction with a bias. Perhaps they meant irredeemably? Of course that's simply not true for an editable medium. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Who cares what the lawyer of a convicted murderer thinks about the article.--Dmol (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article appears to be sourced, the subject seems notable, and User:Beeblebrox has done a good job of cleaning it up.  I see what the lawyer means, in that the article, no matter how neutrally it reports the available information about Kimes, is bound to give most people a rather negative view of her, but I don't see that as a reason to delete the article.   FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per SNOWBALL-I know who she is without reading the article, she's notable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy removal The 'lead' information is repetitious. Many neutral POVs tones could be made on the article, however, they are not, and that does not appear to be changing. Inaccurate information is listed within the contents of "Life section", "Murders section" and "Trial section". The article also includes misquoting. All of which is being listed to appear as fact. Edits to correct these issues are being removed or altered. Only biased information is being used from the references listed on the article. Removing the article is probably the only way to ensure that it doesn't contain misinformation or a biased POV.--Sktruth (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC) — Sktruth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". Sante Kimes is notable enough that this article would just get re-created again anyway. Sorry, but try working on the article's purported WP:NPOV issues rather than deleting it... Doc   talk  13:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The article is being worked on to add more sources. Sante Kimes is very notable.  There is no justifying the removal of this article.  I agree with what Beeblebrox says above.   -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there are any reliable sources saying she was kind to animals and always bought her mother flowers, we could perhaps add those to balance it a little? But seriously, as it stands now it looks pretty factual and well sourced - a murderer is a murderer, and there's no nice way to say that. Of course, if there are any specific claims that have undue weight or are not well sourced, they can be changed or removed - but there are no valid grounds for deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beeblebrox - but shouldn't the nomination say "Mrs Kimes"? Or is the lawyer on behalf of the son? Peridon (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Interesting article, and appears sufficiently notable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article could use stylistic improvements, but it's verifiable information about someone who was actually convicted of murder, and the published book alone puts this case far over the bar for notability. A neutral presentation of the fact of that murder conviction will of course include the negative information that Sante Kimes is a convicted murderer. In the meantime, specific complaints with specific proposed remedies could be brought up on the article's talk page without any need for the article to be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. No policy based case for deleting this article is presented.  The subject's crimes are notorious enough that books have been written about them.  The article is well enough referenced within the context of the living person policy.  There just isn't any way that any conceivable article about this notable person is going to make her or any of her accomplices look good. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 1 February 2011 (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.