Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Dixon

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 — Caknuck 02:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus Dixon

Marcus Dixon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Not Notable DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Multiple Reliable Secondary Sources have been cited - notable according to WP:notability. - Fosnez 00:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment There are 7 references on the page, two are effectively duplicates, so 5 unique references. Of these, two seem to feature the story because it fits with their socio-political agenda, one is a talk show that features anything that might involve enough controversy to boost viewing figures, and one doesn't feature the person, it features an internet chain letter about the person. Only one of the references seems to be an unbiased news report about the case. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • A biased source is not equivilant to no source at all. -Toptomcat 16:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I only cited those sources because they were the first I came to that had the main sources of information. There are literally hundreds of other sites that have the same kind of info on; law.com, findlaw.com, cnn.com, yahoo news, hbo.com ... the list is pretty long ... sorry for being naive enough to think that a source was a source! LookingYourBest 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I searched the BBC, New Orleans Times-Picayune and Minneapolis Star Tribbune, Marcus Dixon doesn't feature in any of their archives. Clearly not notable, I would expect the story to be reported in major US city press if not international press if it were truly notable. Please cite major US news sources. CNN suggests the court case may be notable, but that's the case, not the person. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Ha, thats funny. Pick and choose media outlets that it doesn't appear in, then claim its absence makes it "non notable". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I didn't pick and choose anything, BBC is the principle media source I use, and the TP and ST are the only two USA papers that I have registrations with. Seemed obvious to use them.

      Anyway, whilst the Marcus Dixon case might be properly cited in a discussion of the legal and justice system in Georgia, I don't believe that the person should be listed. It is the debate about punishment that arose from the case that is significant. Unless it is proper to use Wikipedia to identify convicted criminals, we should not assign notability to criminal convictions! DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 22:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Greetings, I have cleaned up the references as best I can. Also, here are the references from the Snoops article (sorry, that was part of the sources I was refering to above):
Arey, Norman.   "Teenager's Appeal to High Court to Attack Sentencing Guidelines." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.   20 January 2004   (p. B1).
Arey, Norman.   "Ex-Star Athlete Guilty in Sex Case." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.   16 May 2003   (p. C4).
Dadigan, Marc.   "Dixon Suit Settled for $130,000." Rome News-Tribune.   14 June 2005.
Edelman, Marian Wright.   "Old South Lingers in a Legal Lynching." Los Angeles Times.   22 January 2004   (p. B17).
Gregory, Lauren.   "Accuser Gets Settlement from System." Rome News-Tribune.   11 June 2005.
Gregory, Lauren.   "Marcus Dixon Movie Possible." Rome News-Tribune.   11 June 2005.
Jacobs, Andrew.   "Student Sex Case in Georgia Stirs Claims of Old South Justice." The New York Times.   22 January 2004   (p. A14).
Milloy, Courtland.   "Marcus Dixon Doesn't Belong In Ga. Prison." The Washington Post.   25 January 2004   (p. C1).
Wooten, Jim.   "Home Life, Not Racism, the Problem." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.   27 January 2004   (p. A9).
Associated Press.   "Floyd County Schools Ask Federal Court to Throw Out Lawsuit in School Statutory Rape Case." 12 September 2003.
Associated Press.   "Georgia High Court Overturns Teen's Sentence for Having Sex with Minor." CNN.com   3 May 2004.
      • I think this satisfies Nobility through multiple sources? Fosnez 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability seems (from reading the article) to be based on his being convicted in relation to sexual activity with his under age girlfriend. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Reliable sources exceeding minimum. Google News archive give > 500 hits [1] detailing the crime, the investigation, the trial, and other details. This is more than a single event crime article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, highly notable case that has led to changes in the law under which he was sent to prison. NYT, WaPo citations are plenty to describe story as receiving national attention. For UK coverage, skip the MOR BBC and go to The Guardian.[2]
--Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable, looking at the coverage. Maxamegalon2000 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I too did some searches, there is valid coverage. Phgao 16:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As I created the article I think it would be wrong of me to vote here as I clearly have a vested interested in it's inclusion in wikipedia. I created the article because I was so shocked that when I searched for 'Marcus Dixon' I got an article about a character from Alias! Emails circled the world about this case and as has been said here google throws up loads of hits about it. I agree the article needs a lot of work, and may not be suitable as a biography page but maybe as a page on the trial? Regardless, there should be some mention of the real Marcus Dixon in wikipedia. LookingYourBest 07:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep An important case: figure was a pawn in a larger question of race & equality before the law in the US. Eusebeus 08:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Normally, a criminal shouldn't warrant inclusion. However, this case got some pretty wide coverage, is well sourced, and even got on snopes: here, which is a pretty significant thing in my eyes. I agree with the above user that the focus should be on the case and not the person (and maybe change the name of the article if someone can come up with a good one). --UsaSatsui 13:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The case involving this individual has had international coverage in English-language press (the British media loves stories about any perceived racial bass-ackwardness of the American South), and the accusations and case against him raised a number of important social and legal issues regarding race and sexual conduct among high school-aged individuals in the state of Georgia. Georgia, at the time, did not have a "Romeo and Juliet" law like many other states that makes certain exceptions regarding sexual activity between 18 and 19-year-olds and minors less than 3 or 4 years their junior. However, if my memory serves me correctly, bills were submitted and perhaps passed to create such a law in the General Assembly session following the kerfluffle that surrounded Dixon's case. LaMenta3 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Widespread coverage, easily passes WP:N. Resulted in change of at least one state law. This is a pretty bizarre nomination. Horrorshowj 18:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This guy was and is all over ESPN. Cap'n Walker 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep zOMG Oprah talked to him!!! He is über notable now. Normally, virtually every criminal is Wikipedia definition notable because they're in the paper or on the news, but they aren't actually notable from the other myraid societal degenerates. This one, however, seems like a notable criminal. i said 01:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The coverage of this individual was extensive and went beyond just criminal activity into the controversy of the sentence. I personally saw & read about him all over the news and cited references clearly verify the notability.--Cube lurker 13:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment. Ok, it seems a lot of people think this article should be kept for various reasons, in various guises. I beleive it passes notability as whenever anything like this happens again this case and individual will always be referred to (as it already has!) thus it is not mere wikinews. How can I move forward with this article and when do I get to remove the Afd tag? Any suggestions and help would be greatly appreciated and a massive thank you to everyone who has already added sources and cleaned up the page. LookingYourBest 13:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The AfD goes for 5 days, unless closed early due to a speedy close or the snowball clause, neither of which I would think applies here yet. Someone uninvolved with the discussion, usually an administrator, comes along, determines consensus (probably "keep" in this case), and handles the paperwork to close it. As for moving forward on the article, you don't have to wait until the AfD is done...you can do that now. In fact, improving the article while the AfD is going can only help your cause. --UsaSatsui 15:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The sources currently provided satisfy our stringent WP:BLP requirements. This is not a WP:COATRACK article, which I expected. Burntsauce 17:02, 18 September 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.