Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Graves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. The discussion below sufficiently addresses the issue of continued media raised in the nomination. --jonny-mt 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Graves

Anthony Graves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Started as a WP:BLP disaster which I've cleared a bit but still just an individual sentenced to death who's conviction was overturned. Currently about to start his second trial. That is all in terms of notability and while it make the news (the Austin Chronicle article is something else), he doesn't seem to be the subject of continued media interest. I don't know of any similar case other than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choctaw Three. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Person not notable enough, neither is the whole article. Dwilso 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing here suggests that Graves is particularly notable. 23skidoo (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per 23skidoo. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Being the primary subject of an in depth CBS News piece and many other reliable secondary sources and his case has long term implications on various judicial procedures is not notable? Many of the secondary sources about this person are from 2000, yet there are more that are from 2006-2007, from reliable sources like the Houston Chronicle [1][2]. I can't believe I'm the only current "keep" vote. --Oakshade (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep this has real significance as a widely publicized case of what on the face of it would seem some remarkable misconduct by the prosecution. But the other references should be addedDGG (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment But my concern is whether this falls under "continued media interest" or is this a one-time quick news story? Is the notability simply because of the overturned conviction? If so, then everyone at Overturned convictions in the United States is notable including the deleted Choctaw three mentioned above or perhaps only when they fall into larger tales, like Mychal Bell. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The media coverage so far spans many years. Media coverage of a person does not need to go into infinity for them to be considered notable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources over a significant period of time to establish notability but suggest maybe renaming the article to be about the crime, trial and appeals rather than as a bio. (not sure what the title would be though!) Davewild (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree on renaming. Rodney King for example is about the guy and the event. I think there is sufficient information to keep it focused on him. If it were more about the conduct of the prosecutors or something else, then I would understand renaming to Anthony Grave trial or something similar. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per significant coverage over a period of time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2008 (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.