Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hatch

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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Hatch

Colin Hatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Aside from the smattering of news coverage, it is unclear that this case will be notable in the long run. Yoninah (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete don't see how he meets WP:PERP. we don't create articles for all murderers and even if they were murdered in jail. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. In this case, we have to consider WP:VICTIM as well as WP:PERP. At the moment, it's too early to tell if the murder of Hatch in prison will have long-term implications. However, if anything, it may turn out that the alleged perpertrator of Hatch's murder, Damien Fowkes, is more notable in the long run, particularly in view of the earlier attack on Ian Huntley. --RFBailey (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitly enough material to justify keeping this article for now. His death was covered by major media and so on. The guessing game is a difficult one, predicting either sustained notaiblity over a long time is just that a guessing game. In situations like that I always take the side of hope and says keep so that time can tell us who is right.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think WP:NOTTEMP applies, but I'm not sure which way it applies. If the subject was notable in the past, then he was notable and the article stands. But if the notability is questionable, and there's little chance of future coverage, then we should delete. Might not be a bad idea to keep now and revisit this one after some time has passed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with RFBailey. I created the article due to interest and media coverage and having done some research thought he may be notable enough due to the number of offences, the controversy caused, the fact that his conviction caused the government to look into other sex offenders. However, if Damien Fowkes is convicted, it would be nice to merge this page with that one, if possible. I realise that the implications of his conviction have not yet been discussed, but I could easily write more on that if need be. - Mezuu64 (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe Hatch may have received the whole life tariff. If he did, that is incredibly rare in the UK, especially for only a single murder. As such, it could be compared to death penalties (banned in most of Europe), which in some cases are viewed as giving increased notability. In addition, major questions were asked and a review ordered as to how the two prisoners came into contact at all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he fails to meet any of the criteria for WP:PERP. - Dravecky (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:PERP.4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't it about time for this discussion to close? The nomination is now 10 days old and plenty of people have made comments.4meter4 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 6.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 00:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few months, noting that there are reliable sources that discuss the person somewhat, and that this is not a BLP. It takes time for WP:NOTNEWS to be proven as opposed to predicted. New sources may arise soon. Also, allow time to look for a suitable merge target. If nothing changes, this page should be deleted in a few months, as failing BIO1E and NOTNEWS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what we normally do that fits is to incubate by moving to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Colin Hatch.

    If nothing much happens in a reasonable time, it should be deleted per this AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP:BIO. Has passed WP:NOTNEWS already with alot of coverage by media.--81.237.218.107 (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC) — 81.237.218.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Involvement in two events which are of limited and temporary significance. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:PERP and WP:VICTIM. Maybe an article about the guy who's said to have killed him & attacked Ian Huntley instead, I'm not sure. Bob House 884 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Run-of-the-mill WP:PERP and WP:ONEEVENT fail. Not everyone that gets a bit of press for committing a crime gets a Wikipedia article, we're not a police blotter. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a few months can not see the harm in that. It is currently a predicted or assumed non-notability as to in fact proven non-notability. It takes time for WP:NOTNEWS to be proven as opposed to predicted.--HelloKitta (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't normally hang onto things that don't meet notability guidelines at the moment but which may become notable in future, but I understand that you and SmokeyJoe may be concerned about losing the content altogether. Perhaps deletion and userfying to someone relevant would address your concerns? Bob House 884 (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there in lays the issues here, me and Smokeyjoe and a number of other users find it notable now. For now it is an assumed non-notability per choice as in comparison to in fact proven non-notability without a doubt. That is why we suggest waiting a few months until we can prove the non-notability instead of predicting or assuming non-notability. The AFD so far is neither a Keep or a Delete majority either so a few months wait will not in any way harm. As then a more certain Keep or delete decision can be made which will certainly be a strong decision to one or the other side. In the case of this article it was first Deleted but re-evaluated and put on again for a few extra days as it was found that there first of all were no consensus for either side also the AFD was not up long enough to provide a certain "result". That to me also proves that there are users of a Keep opinion or atleast a "Wait a few months" opinion that perhaps never got the chance to raise their opinions. So my conclusion to all of this is that a No consensus or Weak keep in favour of waiting a few months and then see what has happen (either for keep or delete definitly) is in the best interest of the Wikipedia and this article. Hope the answer satisfies you.--HelloKitta (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – What is being lost it that an AfD is not a traditional !vote. Admins do not look at the number of Keeps vs. the number of Deletes and decide based on the score. What is taken into account is the support provided behind the Keep/Delete !vote. For instance, if I look at one of the comments supporting a Keep !vote it states, "reliable sources that discuss the person somewhat, and that this is not a BLP." This is not a valid reason to keep an article. (A "somewhat" supported article is probably questionable support and any BLP can be deleted if the sources are not adequate.) If something is not notable now, then it should be removed until notability can be established. There is not a provision in Wikipedia to hold on to something that is not notable. If fact there is plenty against doing so. BTW - the Afd was not reinstated because there was no consensus – the consensus was obvious and based on that consensus it was deleted, the AfD was reinstated because it was felt the duration of the AfD was too short. ttonyb (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bob, I am not so much worried about loosing content. It can be userfied, undeleted on discovery of new sources, or the existing content can be re-created from the existing sources that aren't going anywhere. I'm more concerned about the lack of encouragement to the new user, Mezuu64. I think you second sentence "Maybe an article about the guy..." is reason to give it more time, and is what we would have done years ago, and I think that we are going to much to meta:Immediatism.

    That said, no HelloKitta, I do not find it has demonstrated wikipedia-notability. It fails multiple guidelines (all based on the same line). However, I believed that the guidelines should be read as indicative, not as mandating an immediate decision.

    I suspect that this content (if kept) will be soon merged to a different title, and if the page is kept live fora period, it better encourages editors, new and old, to be alert to new sources, and to allow for a sensible merge. One reason I think that better sources are coming is that there is a great deal of coverage of real crime in printed books. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis of NOTNEWS. Scumbag perp notable only for getting offed in prison for being a scumbag perp. Nothing to see here... Carrite (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being a scumbag is no reason for not including this article on Wikipedia.. In that case in many parts of the world Barack Obama is considered one, for simply being the President of the US.. should we not include him because of that? No reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "...on the basis of NOTNEWS" did you find confusing? THAT was his rationale for deletion, and noting the notability of being killed in prison. Not the "scumbag" stuff. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS. Yes, a lot of press coverage, but that is not enough: the GNG explicitly says, in its fifth bullet point, that significant coverage is "not a guarantee... that a subject is suitable for inclusion... For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not" - as this does. JohnCD (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep murder with extraordinary features and corresponding coverage. I notice we do not have an article for the murder of Sean Williams--presumably that was considered too "ordinary" -- this one isn't. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extraordinary features as DGG states. Passing WP:PERP. Its not an ordinary case.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colin_Hatch&oldid=1179990120"