Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Gary Rasp

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Gary Rasp
Relisted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)



This very stale rejected WP:AFC submission contains negative information about a person who appears to fail the notability guidelines. While the parrot did receive some attention, it is not enough to make the subject of this article notable. As the rejected article intrudes on the privacy of a non-notable person, it should be deleted. Monty 845  23:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A google search of Gary+Rasp++Jane+Gill turns up a multitude of sources about the murder, the parrot and the conviction. The "privacy intrusion" here is a well recounted fact in reliable sources, so BLP alone is not a sufficient reason to delete.  I think there could be suitable material for inclusion found around this subject.  How often do we delete AFC reviews that fail, or become old due to a lack of response as here?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Under current practice, if an article is rejected, it is rare that anyone will look at it again. Some AFC submissions are deleted under CSD criteria, but even then, if the article is rejected before someone notices it, I don't think it is common for anyone to look through the reject pile for things that should have been deleted. The problem is that allowing articles that violate BLP policy to remain accessible, even if not the easiest to find, is inconsistent with the much stricter enforcement that occurs everywhere else. In the case of Gary Rasp, if anything here is notable, its the parrot. Still I don't think the article provides enough encyclopedic value in its current form to justify the privacy intrusion against a living person. Monty  845  14:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio  Let's talk about it! 09:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)



I think there may be just enough to make a small article, The murder of Jane Gill. There are enough sources, and the story has been repeated many times, and there was ongoing coverage, such as http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/15/us/killer-s-son-gets-benefits-from-victim-s-insurance.html --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BLP. Having reviewed the sources here and Google News Archive, I see no indication that the topic passess Notability (events), which requires the coverage having lasting effects: "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." I also don't believe it passes Notability (events): "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." Cunard (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cunard. The "lasting effects", which have supported the long repeating news cycle, are that there is a weird story about a parrot.  This is nto what I think anyone meant by "lasting effect".  It is just trivia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2011 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.