Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Hogg (sodomy defendant)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The person fails the basic notability criteria, as depth of coverage is not substantial. Nothing is known about the person other than the alleged crime. Regarding the crime victims and perpetrators criteria, I would suggest that those criteria are also not met. One of the listed sources outlines the alleged crime in some detail, and the other online source devotes one paragraph to the case. I don't have access to the offline source. I suggest that the alleged crime might be of interest to other articles, for example Capital punishment in Connecticut (as the reasons are given why the alleged perpetrator could not be sentenced to death) or Sodomy laws in the United States; it may well be appropriate to merge some of the content to those articles.  Schwede 66  18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Having had a quick look at Category:Zoosexuality, there are other articles there of questionable notability, where the above arguments may equally apply. So if the consensus is to delete this article, and to merge some of the content to other more relevant articles, this may well impact on some of the biographies listed in the zoosexuality category, too.  Schwede 66  18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment Just stating that I'm more comfortable with the amended and moved article. That said, we should let the AfD run its course.  Schwede 66  18:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is somewhat obvious that the author of the article would be in favour of keeping it. Anyway, it is not true that nothing is known about the person except for the alleged crime. There isn't much information, but there is a Background section, as is customary in articles about criminals. I am not sure what counts as substantial depth of coverage, but the subject of the article, his alleged crime and his methods of defense are discussed by several secondary sources, only three of which are cited in the article (as I believed that would be enough). The "motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." The coverage of "the event in reliable secondary sources... persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (WP:PERP) Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N/CA. Quote from policy: People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. See also, creating a pseudo-biography. Poeticbent talk 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, would it not be easier to move the article to Trial of Thomas Hogg or something similar? According to that policy and Schwede66's views, the only problem with the article is its name. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole article is written like a pseudo-biography (all the way through) and it fails even the most basic inclusion test. Write a new article, if you care. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, does the article focus on the individual or on the event? Schwede and you seem to be saying completely different things and it cannot be both. If the article already focuses on the event because too little is known about the individual (as Schwede claims), then the obvious solution is to shift the focus to the event. Moving the article would obviously include the removal of Template:Infobox person and possibly its replacement with another infobox, as well as amendments to the lead paragraph. Surtsicna (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum. I see, the article has been moved, and rewritten. However, the new name is not compliant with our policy/guidelines. Google search for "Thomas Hogg" yielded about 49,600 results, many of them living professionals (even CEOs and elected politicians across Europe and North America) who might have been taken to court at some point in their careers. The article title is not only fussy but also provocative. The year of the trial must be added in brackets per our wp:title. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not seem to have anything against the new title when I suggested it. If none of those living professionals is notable, I do not see anything wrong with the present title. Furthermore, if this is the only notable trial of a Thomas Hogg, then the title seems right. Either way, this is not the place to discuss the title of the article. Surtsicna (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * keep When a 350 year old court case is still turning up recent cites in law texts, then that's a notable case. The idea that the notability of an article on that incident depends on the phrasing of the article title (which is trivially changed, should anyone insist) is the worst sort of WP sophistry. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been substantially re-worked and now describes a notable event. It still needs a little work, e.g. sourcing to prove the historical importance, but it's much improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and move back to the original title, because it's a biography. Anyone from the 17th century who gets substantial recent coverage should be covered in a general encyclopedia.  BLP1E and corresponding pages for longer-dead people are meant for people who get a flurry of coverage in the news or about whom virtually nothing is known.  This guy is being covered by longer-term sources, and it's obvious that far more than a stub can be written.  Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable enough, also I think current title is better than the original one.--Staberinde (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The person fails the basic notability criteria, but the case doesnt so Keep it is.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:43, 8 February 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.