Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Michael Woods, Jr.

Add links
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 no consensus. To elaborate, the arguments for retention asserts that the sources given satisfy notability, while the deletion side has disagreed with that notion. My view is that neither side has been able to establish any consensus, in particular for deletion. –MuZemike 23:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Michael Woods, Jr.

[edit]
Steven Michael Woods, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Looks more like campaigning against a death penalty then a usefull article for Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep — even the news search given by the find sources template at the top of this discussion gives 11 articles in regional and national newspapers from 2002, 2004, and 2010. this seems to me to easily indicate notability per the gng. if there is a problem with the tone, and i concur with Falcon8765 in not seeing a serious one, it can be fixed by ordinary editing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per GNG. Notability asserted.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:PERP we don't create articles for each person on death row and the usual coverage associated with it. Has to be something very notable to justify an article.LibStar (talk) 13:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A common fallacy is that the various notability criteria for people somehow supercede the GNG. This curious notion is not supported by any policy or criterion. The GNG, in fact, supercedes the "Additional Criteria" - WP:PERP included - and meeting the GNG's provisions is sufficient to sustain notability. I could see a WP:NOTNEWS issue were these articles clustered around a narrow date range, but in fact they stretch over the better part of a decade.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most sources quoted are from a murder victims site, news sites and do not use any (or little) of the actual trial transcripts.I'm not sure how the article could ever be unbiased unless using trial trnascripts for every point. As this person is scheduled for execution in 4 days and this might possibly prejudice for/against this I suggest it is removed immediately. Also- it is not usual to create a page for everyone on death row. (added by User:Manny99887)
comment — the fact that the sources in the article are bad, and they certainly are not ideal, is not a reason for deleting the article. it is a reason for editing it. the question is whether or not there are sufficiently many actual reliable sources over a span of time. there are. using original trial transcripts in a wp article would almost certainly constitute original research, which we don't do. also, we don't expect news sources to be unbiased, but merely reliable. the ones that cover this guy's case are certainly that. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with user Alf.laylah.wa.laylah. filled with reliable sourcing. This one should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow. I don't think I've ever before heard someone seriously suggest that a Wikipedia article be censored because it "might possibly prejudice" legal proceedings. We should firmly reject any such suggestion; Wikipedia is not censored. That being said, the GNG is satisfied by just two reliable sources discussing the subject in "significant detail." However many sources are from sites any given editor dislikes, whether trial transcripts are used in said sources, or the degree to which creating articles for subjects who happen to be on Death Row is "usual" are completely irrelevant to any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Could we stick to said policies and guidelines in making our arguments, please?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  22:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment are we sure that it's serious? Manny99887 seems to be a SPA, and there may be some sockpuppetry going on too. take a look at its contribs and those of Peacer8181 and what they've done to the page we're discussing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I've reverted their edits, and will issue BLP warnings.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment — i'm not sure how you're reading the gng to conclude that this guy doesn't satisfy it. it seems to me that the austin chronicle article and the nyt article alone are sufficient, esp as they're separated by 5 years. the amnesty campaign seems to clinch it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..and there you have it ..the case may be notable . The case...not the living persons biography. If he is put to death in a couple of days as scheduled his life story will still not be wikipedia notable. There is nothing in this persons life that qualifies him as notable for a wikipedia life story. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep(struck - user has already vote commented - Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)) Why don't you stop being a wikipedia-bully @"Night of the Wind"? All you are doing is trolling an article for no reason, and fortunately you are outnumbered. Take a look at page view stats. As to your unfounded accusations and incredulous tone, please do your homework! For one, I'm not against the death penalty, I've just read a lot about this man in news articles and decided that there should be a wikipedia one as well that puts together the most relevant information as possible (i.e. make an encyclopedia article; add to human history, you know... the point/goal of wikipedia). Now I don't know why you would think I'm some kuke "campaigning against the death penalty"; look at the wikipedia articles I have contributed to... none of them even touch on the subject! I'm a physics major at Columbia University and an avid wikipedian... go ahead, google my username or name (Marshall Rogers-Martinez), you won't find anything linking me to any pro-life anti-death penalty nonsense. I'm about as unbiased a writer for this article as you could get, which just points to the ridiculousness of your accusations! Wikipedia needs someone like me to start/write/contribute to this article as I have no links to anything having to do with this guy. So, unfortunately most people would not agree with your statement that I am a "campaigner against the death penalty". Nice try "Night of the Wind" but I think you might have just outed yourself as someone who has strong sentiments FOR the death penalty, and you should no longer make edits to this article as you cannot possibly be an unbiased author. Please remember to substantiate all claims/facts with reliable resources if you do continue to make contributions to this article. Thank you. Mar2194 (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it really a notable conviction and appeal? It has a little more chance of existing under such a title. If he is executed in a few days will his case and appeal be notable for a stand alone article? All I am really seeing is a bit of a save the subject campaign, a few months down the road I don't see any long term notability here. He,s not a notable person, his crime isn't notable. His conviction is a little notable but is it really worthy of its own article? Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Felony murder rule (Texas) - seems like would be the "parent" article to improve and merge to. Off2riorob (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Felony murder rule (Texas) is an excellent article to merge this too. Some improvement may be necessary, as you say. There are other articles of those convicted under the rule that could also be merged, see Kenneth Foster and Jeff Wood (prisoner) (maybe Clinton Lee Young?). The same article can mention the campaigns for/against this rule. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment — To add a voice from an amateur here--I found the page informative and the significant angle is not the individual per se but the nature of the case he represents. The Texas law of parties is currently very much a 'live' issue and it's this case and its notoriety which is bringing it (and its legitimacy) to the fore as a contentious issue. The particular individual in question may well become the 'poster child' for an entire movement against the Law of Parties. 173.53.70.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply: Actually, the important issue is whether there are multiple reliable sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail," as the GNG requires. As it happens, there are. The several editors jumping up and down saying "He doesn't qualify under WP:PERP! He doesn't qualify under WP:PERP!" have blinders on. The subject doesn't qualify under WP:MUSIC, WP:CREATIVE or WP:NHOCKEY either, but those guidelines are exactly as pertinent to this discussion. If you would like to argue that GNG's "additional criteria" should overrule the GNG itself, you can ... but this AfD is not a proper venue for you to seek that consensus. Ravenswing 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this person passes the WP:GNG for a biography under his name. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you'd have to explain the 'multiple reliable sources' then, one of which in fact (the NYT) brought me to this article in the first place. I think a lot of the 'sturm und drang' here have to do with capital punishment per se and is hence misplaced. Maybe this subject (Woods) will fade off into obscurity at some point. Right now he's most definitely that 'poster child' like it or not. And the pertinent issue has to do with the Law of Parties not with Capital Punishment. 173.53.70.133 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment — as far as continuing coverage, here's an article from der spiegel from today: Pitzke, Mark (12 September 2011). "Governor Perry's Death Mission". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 12 September 2011.. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fitting the on-going pattern, there is no discussion of Woods as a person in the article, only his crime/conviction/sentencing. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
admitted. i'm only arguing for the material to be kept. i have no objections to appropriate merges or renamings. although i do think it's a clear keep under both wp:perp and the gng, i don't want to go to the mat over that. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:50, 12 September 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/Steven_Michael_Woods,_Jr.&oldid=1144977453"