Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Jerome Manning


 * 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. Closing this as no consensus despite all of the keep !votes. Among guideline-based rationales for article retention is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus essentially meeting WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. However, this is countered by guideline-based rationales relative to WP:PERP, in which the subject may not be of historical significance. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 09:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Willie Jerome Manning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The crimes of which Manning was convicted were not of historic significance. One of his cases was linked to wider issues (a state court decision and FBI reviews of testimony), but only indirectly, and only for a short period of time. Smallnslow (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:PERP The crimes of which Manning was convicted were not of historic significance. One of his cases was linked to wider issues (a state court decision and FBI reviews of testimony), but only indirectly, and only for a short period of time.Smallnslow (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I've proposed that the article Willie Jerome Manning should be deleted, for the following reasons: Per WP:Perp: An article about Manning would be appropriate only if a well-documented historical event has emerged from the crimes of which he’s convicted. And, to quote WP:Perp, ‘Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.’ Manning’s cases don’t fit this profile.

There’s nothing in reliable secondary news sources to suggest that the crimes of which Manning was convicted were in themselves of historic significance.

Reliable secondary sources covered issues arising from one of his cases at a national and international level for a short period around the date of his scheduled execution in May 2013. These sources reported first the state supreme court’s denial of DNA and fingerprint testing to Manning, and then the subsequent revelation by the FBI/DOJ that Manning’s trial hair and ballistics testimony had been flawed. However, the ‘significant attention’ of reliable sources was only indirectly related to Manning – the focus was instead on the court’s unusual decision and the FBI’s review of hair testimony. Reliable secondary sources have never suggested that Manning had any role, let alone a significant one, in either the court’s decision or the FBI review.

Manning’s case was mentioned again briefly in reliable sources in July 2013, when the FBI admitted that his case was one of 27 death penalty cases to have suffered flawed hair testimony; again, there was no suggestion that Manning had played a role in this – he was mentioned only as an example. Apart from this passing allusion, Manning’s case hasn’t persisted in reliable sources beyond the news coverage at the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support deletion for reasons given, but if any of the information would fit well into other relevant Wikipedia articles then it ought to be put there instead of being completely removed from Wikipedia. Maybe there isn't any such information, but it would be good to check.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename - Manning committed two double homicides, which may pass the WP:CRIME threshold that "the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". But Smallnslow made a good point, and I'm not 100 percent convinced it does pass this threshold.  If the article stays, however, it should not be about Manning, any more than the 2012 Bain murder-kidnappings was about Adam Christopher Mayes.  The article should summarize these terrible murders, and only notable court proceedings regarding Manning--using sources other than court records--should remain.  Maybe call the article "1992-1993 Manning double homicides".  I too feel this crime should not be lost from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Contested I have contested this proposed deletion. The proper thing to do now is to take any further discussion to articles for deletion.  Anyone desiring deletion should follow the procedure listed there. Xoloz (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

All murders are terrible, but there are huge numbers of them worldwide each year. For instance, ‘Globally, the total number of annual deaths estimated by UNODC to be homicides in 2010 was 468,000.’ http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Global Study on Homicide, Executive Summary (P.9). While a particular murder or murders understandably horrifies the community in which it’s taken place, this horrified reaction must be occurring regularly across the world. Though each case must feel dreadfully noteworthy to the community affected, it/they would need to stand out from other murders in some way to be ‘noteworthy’ or ‘historical’ enough for a Wikipedia entry.

In Manning’s cases it’s been suggested that it’s the two double murders that stand out. But the motive given by prosecutors for each of the double murders was theft. If someone plans to steal, and doesn’t mind killing in order to do that, presumably he kills anybody who obstructs his purpose. So I assume if there had been one or three people in the way, the murderer would have killed that one or those three if he had the wherewithal to do that. Two, then, is a random number in each case. There’s nothing premeditated, unusual, noteworthy or historical about both incidents involving double murders – it’s just coincidence. Changing the name of the article wouldn’t alter this.

Regarding possibly moving this elsewhere, there’s a section in the Wikipedia FBI article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation on ‘Controversies’, but nothing about the Hair Review controversy. In the existing subsections under ‘Controversies’ there’s only a very small amount of text for each. So even if a Hair Review section is created in the future, Manning could conceivably warrant a mention, but no more than that – his case is only one example of many. Smallnslow (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support deletion for reasons given, but if any of the information would fit well into other relevant Wikipedia articles then it ought to be put there instead of being completely removed from Wikipedia. Maybe there isn't any such information, but it would be good to check.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion and censorship of Wikipedia. This is a notable case that has been written about in most of the major media of the United States.  The case has led the FBI to rethink its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions.  That aspect of this alone makes it a notable case.  The crimes in question are extremely unusual -- who else in the history of the world has been convicted of two separate double murders?  The case has been discussed in RS secondary sources over a long period of time, now exceeding 21 years.  The editor who has proposed this deletion is a SPA (single purpose account) who has only edited Wikipedia for purpose of pushing a POV on this particular article.  Since he/she can't dictate the article, he/she wants it deleted.  That is censorship, plain and simple. Bundlesofsticks (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a nationally important case that has been written about in the Atlantic Monthly and New York Times, among other RSS.  If there really are problems with the article as alleged above, they seem to be minor enough to be dealt with by editing rather than deletion. Shamrockshake (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Being "written about" in the NYT in and of itself does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This case has been discussed nationally and inter(?)nationally.  When a case is discussed nationally, it becomes notable.  This is different from a murder that is only written about in the local paper and then forgotten when the trial is over. 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Endorsing my earlier archived comment: I've proposed that the article Willie Jerome Manning should be deleted, for the following reasons: Per WP:Perp: An article about Manning would be appropriate only if a well-documented historical event has emerged from the crimes of which he’s convicted. And, to quote WP:Perp, ‘Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.’ Manning’s cases don’t fit this profile.
 * There’s nothing in reliable secondary news sources to suggest that the crimes of which Manning was convicted were in themselves of historic significance.
 * Reliable secondary sources covered issues arising from one of his cases at a national and international level for a short period around the date of his scheduled execution in May 2013. These sources reported first the state supreme court’s denial of DNA and fingerprint testing to Manning, and then the subsequent revelation by the FBI/DOJ that Manning’s trial hair and ballistics testimony had been flawed. However, the ‘significant attention’ of reliable sources was only indirectly related to Manning – the focus was instead on the court’s unusual decision and the FBI’s review of hair testimony. Reliable secondary sources have never suggested that Manning had any role, let alone a significant one, in either the court’s decision or the FBI review.
 * Manning’s case was mentioned again briefly in reliable sources in July 2013, when the FBI admitted that his case was one of 27 death penalty cases to have suffered flawed hair testimony; again, there was no suggestion that Manning had played a role in this – he was mentioned only as an example. Apart from this passing allusion, Manning’s case hasn’t persisted in reliable sources beyond the news coverage at the time of his scheduled execution. Smallnslow (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Responding to comment made by Bundlesofsticks
 * Being written about in most of the major media of the United States doesn’t make Manning’s first case notable, as this degree of coverage lasted only a few days. The longer-term reporting in local news outlets reflects the length of time Manning’s cases have been going through the courts rather than anything notable about Manning or his cases.
 * You’re mistaken in thinking that Manning’s first case led the FBI to rethink its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions – this must have happened much earlier. On July 11 2012, the Washington Post reported http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-fbi-to-review-use-of-forensic-evidence-in-thousands-of-cases/2012/07/10/gJQAT6DlbW_story.html “The Justice Department and the FBI have launched a review of thousands of criminal cases to determine whether any defendants were wrongly convicted or deserve a new trial because of flawed forensic evidence... The undertaking is the largest post-conviction review ever done by the FBI. It will include cases conducted by all FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985 and may reach earlier if records are available… The review comes after The Washington Post reported in April that Justice Department officials had known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people but had not performed a thorough review of the cases.”
 * Presumably if the FBI was worried about the mistakes that its agents had made in the past, its policy on issuing evidentiary opinions for current and future cases must already have become more stringent at this point (i.e. nearly a year before Manning’s scheduled execution).
 * A sentence about the FBI hair testimony was removed from the lead by Magnolia677. If you felt this aspect made Manning’s first case notable, why didn’t you replace the sentence?
 * The United Nations’ figure of 468,000 homicides worldwide in the year 2010 (see my comment on 29 March) suggests the probability that globally there have been tens of millions of homicides since the process of convicting began. Thus statistically the likelihood of there being no other double murder convictions must be infinitesimally small. In any case, what’s notable about 2+2 murder victims, as opposed, for instance, to 1+3, or 3+2, or 1+2+1, or any other combination of numbers? Unless something of significance generates or influences the numbers involved, the numbers are just that – numbers. And in Manning’s cases the motive of theft would have produced a random number in each case (see my comment on 29 March).
 * Re PoV pushing - this is being done by the editor who has accused me of doing this, not by me. For instance, this editor resisted and protested the change from ‘committed murders’ to the more neutral ‘been convicted of murders’. And he/she resisted the replacement of text linked to a court record to make what he/she called a pertinent point, whereas I followed WP:BLPPRIMARY and substituted a secondary source rather than another court document. I’ve been attempting to make this article more neutral, not pushing a point of view.
 * Re censorship – I’m not guilty of this, but it has been attempted by the editor who has accused me of it (this editor at one stage suggested that I should go away and look for an easier article to edit). I've simply followed WP:PERP when evaluating Manning’s claim to notability and historic significance, with reference to reliable secondary sources. All editors are entitled to contribute to the discussion, and I welcome any valid points that are made.Smallnslow (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to Shamrockshake: Per WP:PERP Coverage in US national media lasted only a few days - it didn’t persist beyond contemporaneous news coverage and it didn’t devote significant attention to Manning’s role (the focus instead was on the court’s decision not to allow DNA/ fingerprint testing, and on the FBI announcement re flawed hair and ballistics testimony). No amount of editing would alter this. Smallnslow (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Purge all content sourced to primary sources; as it stands the article is an WP:Attack page with not a single positive statement. Delete because I'm not seeing anything notable about this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be funny? The page is about somebody who killed 4 people.  Should it have a paragraph about his hobbies or the pet turtle he had as a kid? 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting adding basic biographic details in a neutral manner. For an excellent example of how this can be done, see Hitler. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The United Nations’ figure of 468,000 homicides worldwide in the year 2010 (see my comment on 29 March) suggests the probability that globally there have been tens of millions of homicides since the process of convicting began. Thus statistically the likelihood of there being no other double murder convictions must be infinitesimally small. In any case, what’s notable about 2+2 murder victims, as opposed, for instance, to 1+3, or 3+2, or 1+2+1, or any other combination of numbers? Unless something of significance generates or influences the numbers involved, the numbers are just that – numbers. And in Manning’s cases the motive of theft would have produced a random number in each case (see my comment on 29 March).
 * Re PoV pushing - this is being done by the editor who has accused me of doing this, not by me. For instance, this editor resisted and protested the change from ‘committed murders’ to the more neutral ‘been convicted of murders’. And he/she resisted the replacement of text linked to a court record to make what he/she called a pertinent point, whereas I followed WP:BLPPRIMARY and substituted a secondary source rather than another court document. I’ve been attempting to make this article more neutral, not pushing a point of view.
 * Re censorship – I’m not guilty of this, but it has been attempted by the editor who has accused me of it (this editor at one stage suggested that I should go away and look for an easier article to edit). I've simply followed WP:PERP when evaluating Manning’s claim to notability and historic significance, with reference to reliable secondary sources. All editors are entitled to contribute to the discussion, and I welcome any valid points that are made.Smallnslow (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to Shamrockshake: Per WP:PERP Coverage in US national media lasted only a few days - it didn’t persist beyond contemporaneous news coverage and it didn’t devote significant attention to Manning’s role (the focus instead was on the court’s decision not to allow DNA/ fingerprint testing, and on the FBI announcement re flawed hair and ballistics testimony). No amount of editing would alter this. Smallnslow (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Purge all content sourced to primary sources; as it stands the article is an WP:Attack page with not a single positive statement. Delete because I'm not seeing anything notable about this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be funny? The page is about somebody who killed 4 people.  Should it have a paragraph about his hobbies or the pet turtle he had as a kid? 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting adding basic biographic details in a neutral manner. For an excellent example of how this can be done, see Hitler. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Response to Shamrockshake: Per WP:PERP Coverage in US national media lasted only a few days - it didn’t persist beyond contemporaneous news coverage and it didn’t devote significant attention to Manning’s role (the focus instead was on the court’s decision not to allow DNA/ fingerprint testing, and on the FBI announcement re flawed hair and ballistics testimony). No amount of editing would alter this. Smallnslow (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Purge all content sourced to primary sources; as it stands the article is an WP:Attack page with not a single positive statement. Delete because I'm not seeing anything notable about this. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to be funny? The page is about somebody who killed 4 people.  Should it have a paragraph about his hobbies or the pet turtle he had as a kid? 205.197.176.130 (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting adding basic biographic details in a neutral manner. For an excellent example of how this can be done, see Hitler. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I heard about this case on the news and read WIkipedia to learn the background. I really think that's what Wikipedia is for and think removing useful articles is nonsense. 12.219.81.130 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Readers need to feel confident that Wikipedia articles are neutral. This article isn’t. It uses primary sources, and its reporting of secondary sources is selective and biased. You would have got more accurate information from reliable online news sources. Smallnslow (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 04:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep - If the main complaint about the article is improperly sourced statements, why not either add reliable sources or delete the statements in question. Any editor can do that.  There is no need to delete the whole article. Bellczar (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the issue being discussed isn’t improperly sourced statements – it’s whether Manning’s notable or of historic significance as in WP:PERP.Smallnslow (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - the complaints here seems to be that the article is not properly sourced. that is not a reason for deletion and easily fixed. Especially in a well covered case like this.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is at AfD because of Manning’s lack of notability, not because of its poor sourcing. Smallnslow (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 06:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the notability of this case is clear. Widespread news coverage. Perhaps the article could be rewritten, but there is notability here. Bali88 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Widespread news coverage occurred only for the period around Manning’s scheduled execution. This doesn’t amount to notability per WP:PERP, which requires ‘sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role’. Smallnslow (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as extremely notable, As above it needs rewriting but other than that I see no valid reason to delete. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  21:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PERP: I’ve explained at length why Manning is not notable. You haven’t said why you think he is. Smallnslow (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2014 (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.