Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommie Lee Andrews

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 of the debate was merge into Genetic fingerprinting. - Liberatore(T) 16:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommie Lee Andrews

Prod was: "insufficiently notable criminal. somebody had be the first rapist convicted by DNA, and I don't think too many people want to know exactly who that was." Deprod was: "Object to prod, nomination does not state valid grounds for deletion, Wikipedia includes many subjects notable as 'firsts.'" Well, maybe some of these firsts oughtta get deleted. The article communicates nothing new about the history of DNA in crimefighting, and is about an otherwise routine criminal. Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 01:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per that crazed Russian dude. Conflates news with notability. Eusebeus 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. First, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and this sounds like newspaper material. Second, He may merit a mention in genetic fingerprinting, but he's not important enough for his own article. Brian G. Crawford 01:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously the article sucks, but the subject has potential. He does four times better on Google than Colin Pitchfork, who has a decent article. If you want references, there's Written in Blood: A History of Forensic Detection and The Casebook of Forensic Detection: How Science Solved 100 of the World's Most Baffling Crimes. Melchoir 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:BIO.--Isotope23 02:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with a merge if it helps reach consensus...--Isotope23 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Melchior. Genetic fingerprinting is a revolutionary technique in forensic science; this seems like a big enough event. --Deville (Talk) 02:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - a cursory mention in an article about genetic fingerprinting is all he deserves -- Hirudo 02:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to genetic fingerprinting, he is a common criminal only notable in that context. JoshuaZ 02:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, well, that's really what I meant. I have no qualms with a sentence on Andrews being added to the article on the technique, and I think it would be perfectly proper. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment There is already a mention of him on the Genetic fingerprinting page. It has been there some time, although I recently updated it. Ted 17:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JoshuaZ. —porges_(talk) 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - seems no different than Colin Pitchfork. And, from the citations, came before him as well. I'd hate clogging up main articles with such things. Ted 02:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Joshua; this will have the result of keeping his name as a redirect, which I think he is notable enough for (though not his own article). Thatcher131 04:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Good point about the redirect. JoshuaZ 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per User:JoshuaZ. Under no circumstances should this comment be interpreted as my suggesting that an article on this person should not exist in the future if there is enough verfiable information to spin off from genetic fingerprinting. Jkelly 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to genetic fingerprinting. --Terence Ong 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a separate article. Wikipedia should include firsts when they are already notable as such. (To take a rather extreme example, we wouldn't write off the Wright Brothers for just being another pair of amateur pilots.) I also don't care for the "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper" argument: sure it isn't, but if the article sounds too much like a newspaper, just rewrite it. --Saforrest 06:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per JoshuaZ. The difference between Andrews and the Wright brothers is in their history — were this an article about the person/people who came up with fingerprinting, then it'd be an easy keep. Outside of being the first to get nailed, there's nothing really notable about Andrews. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 11:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. He's a small part of the history of a wider subject. Friday (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Doesn't deserve it's own article. Could use a mention in genetic fingerprinting, though more for the date that it was first used than the actual crime.
• Merge per JoshuaZ --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting and notable person. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:46, 3 May 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.