Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Dirkhising

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 Speedy keep, nominator trying to make a point. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesse Dirkhising

Jesse Dirkhising (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non notable as made clear in the first patragraph, and as a murder victim how does this help make a better encyclopedia?, SqueakBox 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep yay! I'm the first vote for this! Nominator seems to have been thwarted from editing efforts so has resorted to AfD process. Subject of article is certainly notable and the murder/investigation got national attention in mainstream media. Isn't that enough? Benjiboi 03:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Speedy? And you are the second person with a vote not the first. The opening says it has received minimal press coverage. This person wasnt notable otherwise and was murdered through no fault of their own and this article is distasteful. But either way its no speedy, SqueakBox
  • Speedy keep Nominator trying to WP:POINT. Fighting for Justice 03:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Please stop attacking me for the hundredth time and you persist in spite of having been warned twice about it. You are completely wrong about my motives. It would be nice to have a reason wwhy the article should be kept instead of spouting venom which doesnt address the issyue at hand, SqueakBox 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Nominator is obviously making WP:POINT per above users. No solid rationale given for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not attacking you Squeakbox. All people have to do is follow your edits, read your comments and edit summary and they will know you are trying to WP:POINT.
  • CommentThat is simply not the case, as the warnings re your behaviour towards me make clear. I am enforcing policy and while I understand you dont like that I would suggest you re-read your user page and start living up to those fine words, SqueakBox 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Check my contribs, I havent invented any policies. It was WAS who invented BLP and thank God he did, SqueakBox 04:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While it is possible the concerns about this editor may be valid (or they may be invalid), I don't feel this AFD is the proper forum to address them. Perhaps it might be better to reserve comments to the subject of this article and take up that discussion elsewhere? Such as WP:RFC/U? FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well if FfJ wants we could go straight to arbcom as I have had my full of this editor, but any user comment will inevitably involve his behaviourm primarily, SqueakBox 04:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For those of us who are out of the loop, the nom is apparently a most valiant white knight crusading for the Dirkhising family's honor, protecting them and others from the terrible shame of Jesse's rape, or rape in general. View this diff, or this thread on AN:I. Unfortunately, our gallant hero is up for a 3RR violation. Speedy Keep, and keep in mind that this dispute should be resolved elsewhere. --Action Jackson IV 04:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep probable WP:POINT violation. SqueakBox has been warring over articles related to rape victims for some time now. Resolute 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep for an incident like this, historic notability should be considered per WP:NOT#NEWS - I think the homophobia charges sustain this. Corpx 05:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 13:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. In and of itself the murder would have been less than notable and this could be just chalked up to "yet another senseless crime" but the controversy it sparked pushes this into the realm of a notable case. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:39, 27 July 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.