Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rivera

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. W.marsh 00:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Rivera

Robert Rivera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested WP:PROD. Original PROD reason: "(1) subject of article is non-notable; (2) article is very POV; (3) article seems to basically be a rewrite of the website listed at the bottom and does not otherwise cite any sources". Someone appears to have meant to add this to AfD but didn't complete the process. No opinion. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• del Mukadderat 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep To quote WP:BIO: "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated". Dunno what the precedent for this type of bio article is, though. EVula 20:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete (G10, see below) Per EVula, subject possibly meets notability requirement by being the subject of a notable court case. The article, however, fails to cite reputable sources or maintain neutral POV. This site [1] has a completely different telling of the story, but none of the disputed facts are presented neutrally. More importantly, the article accuses a law officer of perjury, coercing witnesses and fabricating evidence, which may be considered libelous if not cited and/or proven in court. I say speedy this b/c of the attack/libel issue. Caknuck 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Disputed murder convictions is a well accepted topic. Robert Rivera was very newsworthy when his case was active. The Delaware County Daily Times (circulation 160,000+) featured him on the front page many times and lists over 70 articles about him. The site is backed up by trial transcripts and police reports recorded by government officials. The items involving the law officer mentioned are backed up by the transcripts and reports. No conviction can be disputed unless there is some contention that the prosecution's case is false. Prosecution witnesses cannot sue for libel because someone contests their testimony. There is no libel issue here.

• Users are free to contest specifics and rewrite sections they think are unsupported. Something could be wrong, but no one has found any specifics. This article violates the POV of some users who want to censor by deleting any mention that government prosecutors are capable of error. Wikipedia does contain many articles on individuals who were legitimately convicted. I am not aware that they are contested on POV grounds because they fail to cite that prosecutors sometimes make mistakes. Wikipedia should contain accurate facts, not just puff pieces of a world viewed through rose-colored glasses. --Danras 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Danras, I don't believe that Wikipedia is any more biased than the rest of society when it comes to highly controversial cases. It's not that we want to censor opposing viewpoints, it's just that those viewpoints need to be independently documented. The only reference you currently offer is the robertrivera1.com website, which for the most part only presents one POV. If you can add in other references, such as press coverage and opposition writings, this article has a better chance of surviving. Check out Mumia Abu-Jamal's article for an example of the kind of article you want to write. Even though the Abu-Jamal article still has neutrality problems, it is much more well-documented than the current Rivera article. --RoninBK_ETC 03:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If the "items involving the law officer mentioned are backed up by the transcripts and reports", then cite them. Official court documents are legitimate sources. But if the court permitted certain evidence and testimony that is in dispute, then the reason and source of the dispute needs to be referenced. Also, language like "fabricated circumstantial evidence", "snitch story" and "fabricated confession" without substantiation shows "opinion and bias" and thusly violates WP:POV, and potentially WP:LIBEL. If you can cite legitimate sources that show the prosecution acted in bad faith, then do so and I'll withdraw my objection. But as it stands, this article cannot survive as is when [2] and [3] (both equally spurious sources) tell completely different versions of the events, but the WP article only chonicles one side. Caknuck 08:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per the WP:BIO "newsworthy events" clause. --Oakshade 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a common or garden murder case, and therefore notable. Yes, it's POV, but POV can be changed. That is no reason to delete the article. -- Necrothesp 16:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but tag for clean up. Agne 23:56, 8 November 2006 (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.