Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanna Laney

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, and I agree that it probable needs renamed - use the article's talk page to develop consensus, or boldly move it. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deanna Laney

Deanna Laney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Biographical article which is unencyclopedic in nature, for a subject who isn't notable outside of one event. No neutral version in the history, no version which is encyclopedic or meets our biographies of living persons present either. Totally orphaned within mainspace, a strong indicator that this article is not within the scope of an encyclopedia. Strongly advocate deletion. Daniel 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reasons stated above. This person is not notable, except for a passing incident. There are many murders and murder victims. We don't write about most of them. - Jehochman Talk 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think it is notable and extremely rare for someone to stone two of their children to death, and severely disable the third, believing it is God's teaching, and thus being found not guilty for reason of insanity. Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I restored this article because I believe the speedy deletion grounds were invalid. I also believe it should be kept now. The nomination leaves all the key questions unanswered. First, what makes it unencyclopedic? What WP:BLP1E says is that you shouldn't (necessarily) create an article on a person when there is an article on the event the person was involved in. In this case, that would be an article like Stoning of Laney children. I don't believe there is such an article about this event, and I don't think there should be because the event is defined almost solely by her. The nomination also claims the article is non-neutral, but provides no evidence whatsoever for this claim, and the nominator did not even bother to tag the article. Finally, why does this violate the BLP policy? Of course, it is about an LP, but I see no trace of libel. Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I would be extremely supportive of a move and refocus of the article to the title Stoning of Laney children. As you say, "I think it is notable and extremely rare for someone to stone two of their children to death, and severely disable the third, believing it is God's teaching" — I don't disagree, but I also believe the article about the mother is not notable, is a good example of a person who was only newsworthy for one incident, and hence doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. Daniel 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I apologize for accidentally placing my vote above Jehochman's. There was an edit conflict. There is an addition to the nomination, claiming the page is orphaned. Of course, there is nothing in the guidelines saying that orphaned pages are inherently unencyclopedic. More importantly, the page is not orphaned. It is in two categories (not counting AFD). If there no mainspace links, that's partially because it was a redlink, which people avoid linking to, for 6 months. Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
    • When an article is considered orphaned, it is not linked from another article (categories do not count, IIRC). Anyways, delete as per Daniel. We should cover the event, not the person. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC) keep and rename since that seems the option most agree with. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename as Stoning of Laney children or similar. I don't see how this violates BLP or is non neutral and a lack of wikification is hardly grounds for deletion. If the nominator thinks it should be rewritten he can rewrite it, that's not grounds for deletion either. As he seems to agree that it should just be renamed, why not be bold and rename it and withdraw this Afd? Nick mallory (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to be sufficient sources and news coverage to assert notability for this person. I would not be adverse to a renaming, but see no reason why it must be done. Lankiveil (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
Comment I would accept this option too, with a redirect from Deanna Laney. Superm401 - Talk 16:06, 13 December 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.