Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Cutts, Jr.

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The result was withdrawn. Thanks to Night Gyr, the page no longer attempts to be a biography. Sean William @ 02:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Cutts, Jr.

Bobby Cutts, Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this person is not notable other than the fact that he is one of the thousands of alleged murderers in the United States. We have a sister project named Wikinews used to cover things like this. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie Davis for some more arguments. Sean William @ 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment He has been charged with second-degree murder. Until he is convicted, calling him a "murderer" may be considered libelous. --Charlene 16:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    Point taken. Changed to "alleged". Sean William @ 16:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Long-term notability not established. This would be better for Wikinews right now; we can revisit this if he remains notable in six months. --Charlene 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP - Or merge into the Jessie Davis article. Clearly, this one case is far more notable than the thousands of other alleged murderers in the US. That is the whole point. Not that Cutts is an alleged murderer, but that the Cutts/Davis case is a notable case. (JosephASpadaro 17:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Delete We really can't have articles on every murderer, wether convicted or not. Not notable. See also: Herostratus. Reywas92Talk 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No more notable at this time than any other alleged murderer. Davewild 18:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, a significant part of the case, ongoing coverage for several days indicates notability and notability is generally permanent. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable person charged with a crime. If we get farther down the road from this event and it seems it gets an appropriate level of coverage, it may be time to write an article. Until then, we are left with one event and one set of articles that clearly have the same origin. That's not enough for an article, or else Wikipedia would be filled with true crime articles. My local paper tends to have at least a half dozen articles about any murder case in the area, and they're not the only source of coverage. Despite this, none of those murders are notable. Erechtheus 20:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why? Notability in wikipedia is defined by coverage in non-trivial reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Notability is not temporary. There is in fact a heading in the notability guideline that explains as much. If it isn't going to matter to the world in 6 months, 6 years, or 60 years, there is no reason for an article. Erechtheus 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not what that phrase means. It means that once something has acquired the coverage, we don't say "that was long ago, it's not notable anymore." We have numerous articles about all sorts of obscure things that don't matter to the world, and maybe never have, but they still meet the notability guideline because they have been covered. Your opinion on what matters to the world is not a criteria for exclusion, the criteria is what the world has chosen to pay sufficient attention to for us to document. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You should re-read WP:Notability and particularly the content under "Notability is not temporary". The content is absolutely directed at the meaning I'm assigning the phrase according to the relevant guideline. Erechtheus 21:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If your point is that recent policy changes shouldn't be relied upon, I cannot help but point out the irony because at the time of that change, this man was not accused of murder and the person he allegedly murdered was still drawing breath. If there is a policy problem, it is my understanding that the issue should be taken up there and not within deletion discussions. Erechtheus 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
actually it now discusses both, and justifies both of the limits--as it should. The rewrite basically amounts to the incorporation of the already existing policy that WP is not a newspaper. I agree that very brief coverage is not N, but I notice that the numbers mentioned by Erechtheus are his own invention--and would seem to contradict each other as a criterion. whether the coverage here is sufficiently extensive in time is a separate question. DGG 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Those numbers are indeed my own gloss on what my understanding of policy (or more appropriately, the guideline) is, but they're not new. I've seen similar arguments made in many such debates. That rationale is why we don't have pages full of temperature observations for various localities, even when they would otherwise be verifiable. Erechtheus 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
But which of them do you use when? I can't see how to use 60 years, for WP is unlike to be important as a curiosity in 60 years. Nor do I see how to use 6 years, because all the present articles in WP will have had drastic updating and I hope improvement by then-(cf. WP:UuU for one from 6 years ago). Me, I'm trying to make an encyclopedia for use this year by the many people who use it now (and have a base for future years). (please note that I do not think this article is Notable--I'm not challenging that)DGG 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete- not notable as he has not been convicted and in the US we are asumed innocent untill proven guilty ChrisLamb 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Kelsey Smith has her own page, who not Bobby Cutts?
I encourage you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Sean William @ 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge we do not have to argue over this one, since there is an obvious merge target. DGG 23:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete until Cutts becomes notable (if that ever happens). The editors have tried to make it look like the case has received national coverage by posting links to the New York Times and the Washington Post, but both articles are Associated Press wire stories that may not have appeared in the print editions of those papers at all. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you're in the United States or watch cable, but this case has been covered practically non-stop on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News for the past several days. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Being a suspected murderer is hardly a claim of notability given thousands of such people are charged with the same crime every year. Resolute 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And there are thousands of legislators, and celebrities, and people profiled in major encyclopedias. "There's a lot of them" is not a counterargument to notability established by substantial media coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have boldly merged this into the newly restructured article Disappearance and murder of Jessie Davis, since there was nothing here that wouldn't better belong on this article and general consensus was that Cutts didn't deserve an article on his own. Even if deleted, it would have obviously been appropriate to redirect the name to the case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:37, 25 June 2007 (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.