Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian David Mitchell

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Mitchell

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Inarguably, this blp's subject has been involved in a crime and related investigations and proceedings that are extremely notable; that said, he retains to-date zero notability independent from these closely related events. (Yet, of course, if this article is to be deleted, a redirect from Brian David Mitchell to a subsection of Elizabeth Smart kidnapping--one containing essentially the same biographical info about Mitchell contained at present in the separate blp (such as, for example: this)--would be imperative.) Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but merge/turn into redirect ...after which, when someone would type in "Brian David Mitchell," they would directly go to, say, Elizabeth Smart kidnapping#Biography of Brian David Mitchell--after which they could simply scroll up the page if they wanted to peruse/read about the kidnapping, etc., itself. And, likewise, if they will type in, Google or otherwise surf to "Elizabeth Smart kidnapping," they then could peruse the info about its convicted principal perpetrator if they want, simply as they scroll down the page to where his biography would be included. (And btw another factor to consider is that WP readership stats show that but a small percentage of readers click a link to a related or sub-article thus someone who comes first to Elizabeth Smart kidnapping likely will never click over to read Brian David Mitchell and vice versa! <smiles>)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Mitchell–Smart is like the single Roeder–Tiller WP article: a topic that is essentially intermingled. Both of these are distinct from the pair of Hinckley–Reagan WP articles is that in Hincley–Reagan there is but a few seconds of confluence between Hinckley's and Reagan's life, with the psychotic wooing of Jodie Foster having zero to do with how the crime affected the Reagan presidency or the life of W.H. Press Sec'y Brady; whereas in Mitchell–Smart the various threads of the preceding psychosis and pathology of Mitchell has everything to do with the quasi-Stockholm syndrome experienced by Smart for 9 mo.s as well as all the trials and media coverage (the only thing that doesn't fit in with these threads is Smart's subsequent activism, which is actualy found within her own separate blp). LIkewise, in the Army-of-God militant Scott Roeder – George Tiller, M.D. case, there is nothing yet compiled by Wikipedians about this assassination separate from Roeder's crime and its psychopathology and thus no need for separate articles. (Yet in the case of the alleged so-called "Craigslist Killer" (Markoff–Brisman), Philip Markoff's biography and the murder of Julissa Brisman that he was accused of before his suicide are covered in a single article, fwiw.) Nevertheless, in the case of the interwoven subjects of Mitchell and his kidnapping of Smart, should Mitchell later become notable for some kind of future events essentially distinct from this crime, then the issue should be properly raised again, of course.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hodgson-Burnett re: "quasi-Stockholm syndrome experienced by Smart" point is that it wasn't Stockholm syndrome at all, but the result of a skillful criminal who manipulated and controlled his victim via threats, intimidation, abuse and mostly torture. Stockholm is more of a voluntary attachment or sympathizing with your captor which wasn't Smart's case. Then he went on to manipulate a set of shrinks who should have known better. And, although this isn't relevant to the voting here, Mitchell will be studied more and more as the unique criminal that he is, separate from Smart who is rather done with all this once he is sentenced in May. So it would be better to have a more complete article of this crim as the years go by and as we all study him more closely. Just my opinion though Wombat24 (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Markoff seems to have his own bio page now ~~(I didn't move it by the way)~~, but the Assassination of George Tiller ~~one was~~ is a good example of the problems with joining articles that are extensive and have massive amounts of information and two pictures: they become unpractical to read and they aren't very user friendly simply because they are too long and have too much information Wombat24 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However with Mitchell: today I found a good reference that covers only Mitchell and the religious issues surrounding him, ie is he insane or just an extremist religious zealot. Please read this article here | Line between inspiration and insanity is a narrow one, The Christian Century, I'll put it in the Mitchell article soon too. Wombat24 (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Merge criteria are

Overlap - "There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap."
Context - "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep....Reaches standard for exemptions applicable in WP:BLP1E such as high profile individual and WP:BIO1E "as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified":

Comments

The trial was "The United States vs Mr Mitchell" not Miss Smart, she was just a witness albeit the main one, and its covered that way in many news outlets.
Some of the references in the articles are only about Mr Mitchell and not specifically the Smart kidnapping like "The Makeing of Immanuel, Brian David Mitchell and the Mormon Fringe"(Sunstone) and the Charles Montaldo references in crime.about; his notoriety currently reaches the level of "Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category"(WP:BLP1E) and "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"(WP:BIO1E)
And, again, wikipedia is full of articles of single criminals know for one crime or one event but who are covered enough all in the media to justify a bio page, eg Bruno Hauptmann, Curtis Allgier, if we delete this Mitchell page then the standard would be to delete all those people know for one single event although a well known and well documented even.
I started the page back in June 2010, after asking an administrator to free up the name from redirecting to the Smart Kidnapping (User talk Mitchell) which an administrator did do; I could be seen as having a vested interest as the first editor but I don't have any other vested interests, my interests in Brian Mitchell are purely academic; the page views have increased significantly now that a verdict of guilty is back as the stats clearly show, increasing to 6.1k the day the verdict was returned when previously it was only a few hundred or so viewers, so people are interested in seeing Mitchell's bio and background in wikipedia

*Speedy keep : Because only two editors seem interested in discussing this page delete Wombat24 (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Single editor immediately above has cast a compound vote.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*What? Only listing the reasons one by one, but if it's supposed to be done different let me know or just fix it Wombat24 (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wombat24: I wasn't referring to your bulleted points, only pointing out that both your !votes of keep and speedy keep above belong to the same person~~.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Look, I'll put the speedy one in the bullets then Wombat24 (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I think such WP articles as the horribly overlapping Ağca–Wojtyła pair (Mehmet Ali Ağca ---- Pope John Paul II assassination attempt) and the like should be combined as well!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate section of kidnapping article. No apparent notability outside of that, so he doesn't need a full WP:BLP1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much of this article lacks a large overlap with the other, containing information not applicable to the kidnapping of Smart, making a merge or redirect ineffective. Recommendations to merge or redirect equate to a subjective needed/not needed argument. While I personally find the article valuable in the study and research of sociology and psychology, others may find the content unnecessary. In the end, it's all subjection. Cind.amuse 17:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Meets criteria #3 of WP:PERP. "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Cind.amuse 04:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Artcle too long for merging Kronoseric (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep... I think. BLP1E says this: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Mitchell doesn't appear to be low-profile, but has he been covered outside of the event? This and this may just be enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.