Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theda Nelson Clarke


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Theda Nelson Clarke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced article about a now deceased individual whose only notability was involvement with the Wounded Knee incident. The subject was accused of participating in the kidnapping and murder, but never convicted. There's nothing in this article that can't be covered in the Wounded Knee incident article (and most of it already is). OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, "Poorly sourced article", not grounds for deletion, "now deceased individual", also not grounds for deletion, however WP:ONEEVENT may apply. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ? Many sourcable life facets to be "OneEvent" like Rosa Parks?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment, added women project to talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per DEL5. We don't keep POV forks, particularly about crime suspects who have not been formally charged. The article seems to be more about vilifying the subject than an objective perspective, with extremely bad sourcing I must add. In any case, this is a BIO1E and best covered in the incident article so as to not give undue weight. I personally do not think a merge should happen here as well, agnostic to a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PERPETRATOR. According to notability, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime... has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Given the documented involvement of the subject in the infamous and well-covered murder of Anna Mae Aquash, the subject warrants inclusion of their own page. Silver Buizel (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Except that it's not well-documented. Nearly all of the sources with details about Clarke's involvement are blogs. Refer to reliable sources policy. OhNo itsJamie Talk 02:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there are a number of non-blog reliable sources supporting the article.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Alts:
 * Comment The few reliable sources I've seen mention Nelson Clarke as a suspect who was never charged; that's about it. There simply isn't enough that's well-sourced to merit a separate article on this person vs a few sentences of coverage in Wounded Knee incident. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The few reliable sources I've seen mention Nelson Clarke as a suspect who was never charged; that's about it. There simply isn't enough that's well-sourced to merit a separate article on this person vs a few sentences of coverage in Wounded Knee incident. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The few reliable sources I've seen mention Nelson Clarke as a suspect who was never charged; that's about it. There simply isn't enough that's well-sourced to merit a separate article on this person vs a few sentences of coverage in Wounded Knee incident. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per topic meeting WP:PERP and bring in additional available sources to expand over time and through regular editing.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:PERP, and hope that some editor is willing to weed out the many unreliable sources now in article and improve it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PERP, per WP:GNG. bad article standard is irrelevant to notability guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2016 (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.