Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrone Noling


 * 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 no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrone Noling

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I proposed this for deletion a few days ago because the sources are so poor and it's practically an orphan. Someone removed the tag saying the sources are okay but didn't improve it in any way so here we are. I suggest that unless this piece can be sourced adequately we simply delete it. --Tony Sidaway 12:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - murder is NOT a notable act. Fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 13:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Something like this : (redacted -Tony Sidaway) should at least be properly sourced if not removed entirely. MartinDK 13:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did intend to go through and remove the unsourced negative stuff. I'll do so now. --Tony Sidaway 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I have found the sources in question, and restored the text which they support: several Ohio newspapers, including the Plain Dealer, an unquestionably RS. The article now shows why it is notable: apparent a rather obvious use of false testimony, and a truly remarkable denial of access to evidence, made available to a newspaper, but not the defendant, a denial which was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court.  I have not added the primary sources from the court documents, since they are fully reported by the newspapers.DGG 23:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just noticed--the material Tony deleted was hardly "negative" material--it's the material tending to exculpate the defendant. DGG 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Material deleted because it was partisan and very dodgily sourced. --Tony Sidaway 12:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a source for the claim that the prosecutor is disgraced. Such a term is inherently POV and the fact that it was used, in addition to the article being horribly one-sided, makes me think that this was added by one of the parties themselves and as such it constitutes clear abuse of Wikipedia to gather attention to an otherwise unfortunately non-notable case. There are truckloads of stories like these all over the world - the fact that a handful of sources from the local media can be found does not make it notable. MartinDK 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed on that comment about the prosecutor--it has to be found in the sources. There probably is a separate article there--the home p. for the lawyer who defended him  boasts   "[he] pleaded guilty ... and agreed to quit his job in exchange for the dropping of multiple federal charges..." (from the Akron Beacon Journal.) As for the rest of Tony's far reaching deletions, it's all in the articles.--I suppose they have to be put in the footnotes, sentence by sentence.  DGG 01:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to understand why the extensive Cleveland Scene article, even by itself, would be a poor source. I suspect an underlying POV is the real problem.  Since ther are about 5000 U.S. murders a year and over 1.8 million Wikipedia articles (and growing), I do not think there is much basis for excluding any murder as non-notable.  This double homicide case is a good story.  --Danras 04:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problems with the Cleveland Scene article was it was not clear whether it was only an online paper, or one of just local significance--had that been the only source, I'd have supported deletion. Possibly all murders might prove notable if sufficiently researched, but in practice only some will have the sources available. This one is notable for the claims of improper prosecution & the Ohio Supreme Court decision. DGG 01:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 18:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Aza Toth 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, does pass WP:RS but I'm not entirely sure if that's enough... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep, I have strong problems with a one sentence article. There is a story there a notable story, there are plenty sources, BUT there really is no article written. Callelinea 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the only reason its a one sentence article is that Tony removed material supported by the refs but not sufficiently source,d & I did not want to revert him. Check previous versions. DGG (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete, what we have here is a man convicted of homicide who some people believe may be innocent or whose trial was at least conducted unfairly. While I am in favor of such efforts at transparency and review, there are dozens if not hundreds of similar cases and this one doesn't seem to have really achieved notability as a representative of the class. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there hundreds that have gotten the repeated notice of newspapers of the quality of the Plain Dealer? If so, let's put them in. Just give the refs. DGG (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per Ebv-wiki, TenPoundHammer and Dhartung. Bearian 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Dhartung. Accounting4Taste 19:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete murder is notable if there are articles etc. about it...not sure if there are any though, but is not inherently non notable. Giggy  UCP 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Criminal Biography. Of course I now see this AfD is older than I first thought so may not be news to them/you Canuckle 22:28, 12 July 2007 (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.