Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Quentin Jones

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 delete. — OcatecirT 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Quentin Jones

William Quentin Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I propose to delete this article since Wikipedia is not a memorial. The subject is known only in the context of the crime he committed. However, that crime should not make the people involved notable (neither the victim nor the criminal). The crime or the legal procedure itself might in principle be notable, but there's no hint to that effect here. See also WP:BLP1E. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - Definately considered what Wikipedia is NOT. Will add prod template as should be speedy. Plm209(talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: Not speediable; speedy deletion has been contested before. --B. Wolterding 12:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I dug up some sources, one of which is a CBS news report, and added some to the article. I also removed the prod, as I believe it can be kept now. Removed pieces that be considered memorial-like. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • These sources still mention him only in the context of the crime. --B. Wolterding 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I do see your point. I'm meerly providing what I could find. Have a nice day Bert. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being the victim of a crime does not make one notable, and nor does being the perpetrator behind the crime. The murder was non-notable, there is no additional assertions of notability for this guy - so delete. Arkyan • (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would guess that someone is trying to put up articles on everyone executed in the US in modern times. Otherwise, I can't see why this person is particularly notable. Brianyoumans 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, even with sources a somewhat unremarkable crime. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep There's more to it. I went back and checked the actual sources on this one, because the dates did not seem right. The article can be expanded, and I'll do it before the time is up. There are multiple news stories over almost 20 years. He was on death row for 16 years after conviction; there was a quite possibly biased juror, resulting in several appeals, some successful. Nt saying that my rewrite will necessarily make it, but I think that a great many articles about people we judge non-notable might be notable if a fully written and researched article were written. NN at WP means NN based of superficial research and superficial writing. DGG 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete while an argument can be made that all executed people are notable in some fashion (gosh, the state goes to great lenghts to kill them), I think that is the weaker view. All executed murderers (at least in the US) will get sufficient press at the time of the crime, at the time of trial, at sentence, at various stages of appeal, and at execution. No different here than anyone else in similar circumstances. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Run of the mill crime and punishment is newsworthy but not encyclopedic. Edison 19:23, 23 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.