Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Parente (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Nominator blocked as a sock. Nothing to do here. If someone wants to renominate feel free. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

William Parente
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOTNEWS, after months this event person is still not consider notable. Leave it to Wikinews to provide us with news stories. Xqe (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a single event, since both the Ponzi scheme and the murder-suicide are notable. Plenty of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - large numbers of high quality sources satisfy WP:N, and his alleged involvement in the Ponzi scheme arguably pushes him over WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Also note that sources such as the Baltimore Sun discuss him in the larger context of social stress caused by the economic crisis and in that sense those sources assert that his significance is greater than merely his particular criminal actions. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This person died before he even established notability. If the police arrested him before and it turned out to be something, then he would be notable. But it never happened. There was no controversy after his death. Xqe (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notability has already been established; this is a subject involved in multiple events that stand out and that were highly covered. Therefore, you cannot say that after months, he has not been considered notable. Hellno2 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can notability be established when the man died? He was only in the news after his death. Therefore, before his death he was not notable at all. Xqe (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be living to be notable, or accrue your notability while alive. Van Gogh wouldn't have been found to be notable at any time during his lifespan but he's unarguably worth an article today. - DustFormsWords (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely there are differences between Van Gogh and Parente--and if only Wikipedia could take such differences in account. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, Van Gogh's much less marginally notable than Parente, and for his contributions to society rather than his crimes. But the principle stands that Parente is significantly covered in multiple, reliable sources for reasons that transcend WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and being dead really has no impact on that.  (If anything it makes notability easier to establish as the standard of sourcing required for living persons is marginally higher than that for the deceased.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment--I said delete last time, and the time before that. This thing has references, all from newspaper articles and websites, but still, there is no doubt that this is "notable" according to our current standards, even if those standards also make this place a newspaper archive, where yesterday's story is summarized for eternity. But I'm not entirely unhappy: at least the current version of the article does not claim that some people were sad when the guy's family died (check the history if you don't believe me). Drmies (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2009 (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.