Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ross

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 17:23, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Ross

Article does not establish notability outside of current events. RickK 06:55, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, or merge and redirect; not sure where. "His execution will be the first New England has seen in 45 years" merits mention somewhere. —Korath (Talk) 07:29, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. If and when it happens, it belongs on Current events. RickK 07:30, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand.
  • Keep the article.
    • Those comments by the article's author, IP 68.103.217.180. Please sign your votes, and they'll count a lot more if you either use the standard format, or create a userid, or even more if you do both. Andrewa 09:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. By the time this vote is decided, the article will probably have grown significantly. Andrewa 09:30, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Andrew. Inter 13:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I totally agree with Beginning. To even post a deletion notice is ridiculous.Squiquifox 14:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) The fact that he will now not be executed makes no difference to my keep. How quickly can this issue be decided. I would like to see it resolved within 24 hours? Right now the consensus is to keep the article. --Squiquifox 21:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. "Article does not establish notability outside of current events." I find the above argument to be implying that "if the guy is dead, he's notable (outside of current events since he'll be dead as the first guy executed in NE in 45 years) but not alive". I agree with the logic (this is an encyclopedia and not Wikinews) but find the end result (wait until he's dead before writing about it) perverse. --JuntungWu 16:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that. I don't think he would be notable once he's dead, either. By the way, his execution has been at the least postponed. RickK 21:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. That was just my overall impression. --JuntungWu 12:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It seems to me if they guy's notable it's only for being the first person executed by a New England state in 45 years. Well, so far he hasn't been. Think of him as an American Idol contest who might win. Not notable until he does. Right now he's scheduled to be notable next week; does that make him notable already? I'm tempted to think not. If waiting until he's dead to write about him is perverse, well, I've been called worse things (hell, I spent $15 to enter a death pool for 2005). Anyway, even if he is the first person executed in these parts in 45 years, I'm not sure that makes him any more than a footnote on the capital punishment page (or related page). So I guess that's a delete. -R. fiend 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThe death plenty is becoming an issue again, and this guy will be the first man to be put to death in New England in 45 years i think he should have an article on Wikipedia.
• Strong keep. Notorious serial killer; murders paralyzed an entire region for years; committed brutal murders in at least two states (Connecticut and New York) and possibly more; focus of major debate over death penalty; case has been heard by U.S. Supreme Court multiple times; over 86,000 Google results for "Michael Ross serial killer", the majority of which aren't news briefs but lengthy articles and websites about him and his crimes; etc. This is not simply a local case or a current event. I can't fathom this even being discussed for deletion. – Beginning 00:44, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Awesome. Then please edit the article to indicate all of this. The article as written at the time of nomination had none of this information, and therefore I will repeat, "article does not establish notability". RickK 00:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Again, fair enough. I agree that you were correct in making a nomination in the first place. --JuntungWu 12:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • With all due respect, you could say the same thing about virtually every stub on Wikipedia. The article has been expanding, so I really see no need to delete it. – Beginning 00:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for above reasons. --Idont Havaname 02:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, until article establishes notability. Megan1967 02:23, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Serial killers are always encylopaedic. Zerbey 22:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Michael Ross has been a prolific writer in the press, including New York Times. If you decide to delete him because you think he is not significant enough as an individual, fine. But if anyone here wants him deleted because they disapprove of him being publicised, you have no right to be using any encyclopedia - this view would mean deleting people such as Hitler, Franco etc. Alan Moroney, Brighton, England 31 Jan 2005
• Move condense to a mention at Capital punishment or something. As of 1 Feb 2005, no regular Wikipedia articles link to Michael Ross, a symptom of low value. --Wetman 21:22, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• A single current event does not make an encyclopedia article. Transwiki to Wikinews. Evidence does not yet support my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Rossami (talk) 03:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• STRONGLY KEEP. Concur with what Beginning said. Neutrality^talk 06:17, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.