Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McGrady (old)

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. This person meets the minimum criteria for notability as described at WP:BIO. Inclusion of this article does not amount to pandering to sensationalism, as suggested by the nominator. As for further coverage in secondary sources, the BBC account includes the passages "Mr Grattan-Kane said McGrady had a history of abducting women in the street and forcing them to do things at knifepoint" and "Mr Grattan-Kane said: "I am fairly confident Rochelle was dead within an hour of going into his flat." These are statements descriptive of an unusually violent criminal who will likely be the topic of a future secondary source. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John McGrady

John McGrady (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Suggest to delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a sensationalist tabloid, and this person has done nothing notable enough to warrant encyclopedic coverage. Burntsauce 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This raises the issue of notability of criminals. This article contains non-trivial coverage, so per WP:BIO the article subject is notable. However WP:NOT says Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article. This person is unlikely to receive any further coverage in secondary sources. I believe that WP:NOT outweighs WP:BIO in this case. Kevin 23:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep:He apparently dismembered her, which I think is fairly uncommon in the UK, and which accounts for a life sentence, which I think, subject to correction, is also not that common there. I think brief period of time meant or should mean a day or two, not a year or two; and once N always N. DGG 23:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per comments from Kevin. End of the article If the court outlaws lifelong imprisonment... is also crystalballery. --Bren ^talk 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOT, and it not being particularly notable. Dismemberment isn't that uncommon, it's just a handy way of getting rid of bodies. Murder is always a mandatory life sentence for murder in the UK, and although the associated tariff isn't normally a whole life tariff it's not that uncommon, in fact it seems to be employed more and more now compared to earlier decades. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- Just as high profile as the terrorist murderers that we have articles for. Astrotrain 08:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't like these keep x because of y reasonings. WP:WAX. Do you have any other reasons to keep? --Bren ^talk 14:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nothing notable or exceptional in this case.--padraig3uk 13:15, 19 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.