Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teina Pora


 * 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) czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Teina Pora

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail to meet WP:CRIME. There are a number of people agitating (apparently with good reason) to get this man freed, but wikipedia is not a campaigning platform. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. On the contrary. It clearly meets WP:CRIME which specifically states: "The criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly convicted of crime: The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."


 * Pora had a "significant role" in that he got convicted - twice for the same murder. This is historic because the murder took place 20 years ago and Pora is still in prison. In addition to coverage at the time of the murder, there has been plenty of coverage about his role recently in print media, radio and television as well. Offender9000 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Refs in above converted to links since this page has no reflist. Dricherby (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - A common murder is not a significant crime so the only criteria is if he is a significant figure due to the publicity around the campaign to get him released. It would appear there are a few stories every now and then about this but not much otherwise. Eg almost nothing in the Herald between 2000 and 2011. I don't think it is enough to include him - SimonLyall (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 25.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  01:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*Move to Murder of Susan Burdett per WP:1E then prune all the one-eyed fan-club material. Delete as per later comment. Daveosaurus (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, getting significant coverage in NZ news media, including in the New Zealand Herald newspaper and 3 News television channel. Maori Television is about to air a documentary "THE CONFESSIONS OF PRISONER T" about his case.- gadfium 06:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Meets WP:GNG, just because someone didn't receive coverage in an arbitrary period of time doesn't mean they fail any guidelines. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep need a cleanup and possible rewrite but meets WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was a notable murder, then that might work. It's not, so this is the more valid article. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, if the murder isn't notable, and the murderer isn't known for anything else, then he can hardly be notable himself, can he? The suggestion, bolded above by Offender, that Pora is wrongly convicted, is an extreme fringe POV which in the eyes of most people founders on the fact that Pora confessed to the murder. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But the fact he confessed, then several reliable sources began showing evidence that the confession was due to being under duress (for want of a better term), is why he is notable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:49, 1 May 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.