Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Charles Glennon

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. Daniel.Bryant [ T ยท C ] 04:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Charles Glennon

Michael Charles Glennon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete a violation of WP:LIVING#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy & WP:LIVING#Non-public_figures and does not conform to notability guidelines in WP:BIO. Strothra 18:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep as "non-public" seems inappropriate for someone with as many reliable sources writing about him as there are.[1][2][3] The article should not simply be "he's a paedophile and here's who he molested" but detail the zigs and zags of one of Australia's more notorious sex-abuse cases. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Note, one of those is a blog. The other two are the exact same article. --Strothra 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The blog is from the Poynter Institute, and is a reprint of a Herald-Sun article.
More reprints of contemporary stories: [4][5]
But you've changed your rationale, so let's discuss that. You're arguing a "presumption in favor of privacy" for a clergical child molester:
  • convicted four times of sexual abuse in separate cases (1978, 1991, 1999, and 2003)
  • whose 1987 trial was aborted after a prior restraint violation for which a top radio personality was fined
  • who when faced with new charges, fled to Britain
  • after extradition, was convicted on 26 charges (of which three were later overturned)
  • is now imprisoned
  • may yet stand trial on new charges.
I really don't think that's what the presumption of privacy is for, do you? --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that several blogs repeated one news article does not establish notability as per WP:BIO. --Strothra 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That is not a fair or in any way correct assessment of the sources, which are from The Age, the Herald-Sun, the Courier-Mail, and the Australian Associated Press. multiple independent sources is the wording, not multiple independent events, which seems to be your reading. One event reported by multiple sources is the only reasonable interpretation of the guideline. In any case, here's more:
--Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Those are the only two reliable sources you've provided. The links you provided above all go to blogs and are the same article word-for-word with the exception of The Age. So ultimately, you've provided three reliable sources with no links to article sin the Herald Sun or the Courier Mail.--Strothra 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The Poynter Institute is a highly-regarded US journalism foundation. Their digest of news articles may meet a flexible definition of "blog" but it's little different from any other use of a wire service.
I am 100% confident that the Herald-Sun and Courier-Mail published articles on Glennon, regardless of your opinion of Poynter as a source. I believe that is sufficient to demonstrate notability. That makes five reliable sources, no matter how you're counting (and I acknowledged above that I made a cut-and-paste error, so yes, two of them are the same article. I'll strike through one so it's perfectly clear I'm not counting it.) I don't know much about the Catholic Church Resource, but it is a charitable trust founded by the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, and again is operating a news digest, not a "blog". They seem a reasonably reliable source of news relating to the Catholic Church in Australia (aside from potential POV/COI issues), all the more so because they report stories like this one. (Obviously, I would prefer if I could reference a newspaper's own website archives for its stories, but they don't always give us that courtesy. In this case, much of the story took place before the web was actually invented. The CathNews site provided links to the Herald Sun, since 404'd, but they were not available at the Internet Archive.) Regardless, you've indicated that these do not count toward your total personal count, which you've stated is three reliable sources. The WP:BIO standard is "multiple independent sources", thus the standard is satisfied. It may interest you to note that I have also provided sources in the article, as I improve it:
I know it's a terrible hassle to go looking for sources before making an AFD nomination, but it would be nice to know that it had at least been tried. --Dhartung | Talk 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to pass [[WP::Notability]] with all the news articles. Akihabara 02:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but improve. Paul Hjul 08:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(Keep and and all the sources. I think I would have said presumption of privacy for a single conviction, since we also do not include people convicted of a single murder. DGG 02:42, 13 December 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.