Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan McMahon

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan McMahon

I created this article and claim authorship. The article was prodded by Shimgray with the text: This article does not establish encyclopedic notability; being convicted of doing nasty things to animals, with a one-year prison sentence is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for an encyclopedia article; neither is ownership of an obscure finance firm. There is no evidence given for his single crime being a particular cause célèbre of the time, or having any effect on contemporary law, culture or criminology.

I didn't notice that it was prodded before it was deleted. I have restored and would like to contest the prod by bringing it here. - Richardcavell 01:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There are many more criminals who have much more heinous crimes. i don't think why this guy should have an article --Ageo020 01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete petty criminal.--Peta 03:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Doesn't break any Wikipedia policy. It is verified (external links are the references), is factual, NPOV and not original research. "Notability" is not a policy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But WP:NOT is, and he fails WP:BIO.--Peta 05:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • ...and is WP:BIO policy either? No it isn't. It's not even a real guideline, it's a guideline to help define whether or not it is notable and should be affected by WP:N, which is also not policy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Mere compliance with the letter of verifiability &c shows that something is able to be included; it does not, and cannot, automatically show that it has to be be included. It's a crime, and it's a nasty crime, but it's not important, it's not significant, there is nothing which makes it worth including in an encyclopedia. We do have the right to use editoral common sense in addition to policies. Shimgray | talk | 14:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 05:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep stomach churning but unique and well sourced. I don't know if there categories for bestiality and animal cruelty but he would serve as a prime example for both. Agne 06:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • two newspaper articles is "well sourced"?--ZayZayEM 09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While this case got publicity, I don't think that it is notable enough to warrant an article. It is problematic under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy states "Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy." I don't think that this person is notable enough to warrant invading his privacy. Capitalistroadster 07:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rebecca 08:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why? AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion. -- Synapse 10:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: It is a borderline case. It's a horrible story, no doubt, and shocking, and I'm sure there was considerable infamy (which means notability, in a case like this), but the question is whether the subject has become a by-word for animal cruelty or an emblem of what is wrong with the world. It is not really a prod, so the nominator has done the right thing. (By the way, that last sentence is pretty irrelevant, as the man's marijuana and speed use is unimportant, unless there is a causal connection the article does not explain.) Perhaps the best thing would be to merge the information as part of an "Infamous incidents" section of animal cruelty, with a redirect. Geogre 12:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think that his marijuana and methamphetamine use is important, since it formed part of his courtroom defence. - [1] Richardcavell 05:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The crime is notable: the person is not. I would suggest to delete the article, but include sourced information (including Mr "catf***er" McMahon's name) on it in relevant articles such as zoophilia, bestiality and animal cruelty. Brendan McMahon could then form a redirect to the appropriate article. Vizjim 13:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Geogre. Serving a year in jail for what is ultimately a rather petty series of crimes is not enough for an encyclopedia of one's own. Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as the story attracted international coverage. If it were only a story in Australia (where it happened) and New Zealand (where the guy's from) I'd vote to toss, but that's not the case. CNN has an article on it[2], South African News24 wrote about it[3], the Alaskan Anchorage Press had coverage [4], the Manila Times of the Phillipines wrote about the story [5] and a google news search shows The Washington Times did a piece on it as well.[6] A story that gets coverage in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the USA and the Phillipines is notable enough for my tastes. At the very least, a merge and redirect, but I think keep's a better call. Vickser 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Regarding the news articles in the non-Australian and non-New Zealand press (the subject was NZ-born) - all these articles appear to be reprints or rewrites of international newswire articles and NOT original journalism by foreign journalists. The CNN article is sourced to Associated Press. The Manila Times article is sourced to Agence France Presse. The South Africa article seems very much like a cut-down version of the AFP story. The Washington Times link appears to be broken, but its likely that its a wire story too. Newswire stories (which by the nature of their platform, carry many more minor stories than newspaper) are simply lifted from a online computer feed and required minimal effort by a newspaper editor. If it was a really substantial story, international journalists would not just be doing copying wire stores. (oh and the Anchorage article is a brief paragraph in a just-for-fun "News of the Weird" column). Bwithh 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Vickser --Guinnog 23:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; significant news coverage in Australia and internationally, in any case it passes the J14B notability test. --
  • Delete Not encyclopedically notable as a criminal ("drug-crazed person kills animals" is not particularly unique or remarkable). There are many, many stories that get coverage in multiple places in international news media but which are not encyclopedically notable (this one is a "news of the weird" article which has shock value for journalists, and seems to have disseminated internationally through newswires, not original foreign journalism). (And incidentally, the current article content has various inaccuracies. (The sentence was 16 months, up for parole in 12. The single bestiality charge was dropped for lack of evidence. The article also fails to mention the subject's psychosis from a heavy drug habit)). Okay as a brief mention in the infamous incidents section of animal cruelty article. Bwithh 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Vickser (JROBBO 06:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep significant coverage in Australian media of this character. Lankiveil 05:38, 2 August 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.