Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Sartory

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. this might be a case of TOOSOON as an academic and otherwise is ONEEVENT - willing to move to draft or userfy on request Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Sartory

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

Clearcut case of WP:BLP1E NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I know he's dead but all coverage is about his murder and murderer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the additions by other authors, Walter Sartory's article is no longer just about his murder. Sartory was a major player in the development of new inventions, including work on separating blood cells, and nuclear reactors. He has 2 patents mentioned, but 2 other major patents have yet to be declassified, but one would suspect they were classified for specific special reasons, such as their importance, or the subject material, nuclear bombs, they are dealing with. While his murder was heinous, it ended the life of a very valuable man in our society. A successful scientist. A notable life, and a notable death. I vote keep. Sarahrosemc (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was a huge millionaire, and the details of the murder are gruesome. Hollywood gruesome. He also did important work for the government on nuclear projects. A few topics are mentioned in the articles. He also had 3 patents. Does any of that matter? Sarahrosemc (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His being a millionaire doesn't matter. The fact that his murder was gruesome doesn't matter. You don't mention working for the government in the article. That might matter. The patents matter only to the extent they were actually used for something and received coverage from secondary sources. You kind of lumped all of the sources together, so without reading them all, it's hard to tell what source supports what material in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of coverage appears to be regional centered around Boone County, Kentucky around the times of the murder and trial. In accordance with WP:EVENT, I think notability needs to be demonstrated by coverage outside the local area spanning a longer period of time. The Los Angeles Times did give non-trivial coverage in 2010 (i.e. [1]) as did The New Zealand Herald (i.e. [2]) and The Independent (i.e. [3]). Additional overseas coverage in The Telegraph (i.e. [4]). Cincinnati Magazine would be local coverage, but it certainly devoted more attention to it than the average murder (i.e. [5]). Location (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested this to Bbb23 - what should be done is a creation of a "Murder of Walter Sartory" article and this article redirected to that one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any secondary sources, anyone? We need sources that are independent, and news stories about the event are by definition not independent. Any academic journals cover the guy or the event? Any books? Any media stories that refer to it and analyse the primary sources? Let's not engage in unverifiable speculation by saying basically "the incident got non-trivial coverage, so of course it's going to get secondary source coverage". Most such incidents get forgotten. Nyttend (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is mostly a WP:coatrack for the murder, so renaming it makes sense, but only if the murder itself is notable. We already have three articles; the prosecutor Linda Tally Smith, speedied and now at AFD; this article about the victim, PRODed and now at AFD; and the murderer Willa Blanc, speedied, that largely consist of just the links for this case. Lets not add another one. If the murder case is notable then we can rename this article and rework it. We have no evidence of the notability of the man, and so far only short term coverage of the murder. Meters (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With the changes to the article it is no longer a coatrack for the murder, but all of the refs in the article are actually still about his murder. Everything we have about him other than the murder (his patents, work history, etc.) is just background from the murder coverage refs. In effect, we don't have independent sources, we just have multiple sources writing about the same event (WP:ONEEVENT). We can't determine notability on potentially-notable but classified work. I'm still not seeing independent sources to show his notability so I'm not changing my "Delete". Meters (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I'm talking to Americans, so I assumed his millionaire status meant something. It definitely meant something when he was alive. It's also what got him killed. His patents I do not know about, just that he had 3 of them, and I wouldn't even know where to even begin to look for them, and lastly, Sartory working for the government, all that he knew, is probably gone with him too. He worked on nuclear reactors. He was paranoid that the CIA was out to get him, so either, he's crazy, or maybe he knew too much. Either way, his work on nuclear reactors hasn't been much publicized, since, it's nuclear weapons. The government probably wants to keep a lid on that kind of information. The "Murder of Walter Sartory" I would not be against, and would work on it, but the threshold seems to be really high for notability, and frankly, I just do not care about any of these people. The case is interesting, and people's lives are important, but I can see how, from an ivory tower, this could look meaningless. Sarahrosemc (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to say that this is the English Wikipedia for the over a billion people who understand English. There are about 12 million millionaires in the world so that means little. You might want to check out WP:NOTNEWS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This article piqued my interest, so I started digging a little to see if it could be saved. Per WP:ACADEMIC, notability can be established by "[receiving] a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"; the IR-100 Award might qualify. Also, the opinions of his colleagues, as cited in the Drogin article, seem to indicate that he "made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed", although this is unlikely to be verifiable in reliable sources for a while, since it is apparently classified. I think you can make a case to keep. I'll continue digging, as I have time, as long as the discussion is open. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that supports notability. Being paranoid, a millionaire, or murdered is not sufficient to show notability. Coverage is focused on his murder, but that seems like WP:NOTNEWS. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Acdixon. He's notable for being an inventor and being recognized as such. As his classified activities are eventually declassified, my hunch is that this kind of recognition will only grow. Also, I'll highlight the development of this article since it was nominated, and it no longer focuses on the subject's murder. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. If information is declassified in the future which makes his notability clearer, then of course we can restore the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Publishing pioneering papers on reactor design and medical centrifuges, which facts are supported by reliable secondary sources, not just primary sources, qualifies him under WP:ACADEMIC even before his classified work is released. --Bejnar (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (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.