Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination)

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. Any renaming discussions can be held on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Titus

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

Delete. This is arguably a BLP1E (or would be, if the subject were still alive) -- essentially a non-notable biography about a person who was wrongly accused of rape. JBsupreme (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BDP1E. Relevant notability standard is the same for both living and dead persons. Pretty clear cut, in my opinion. No coverage of event or individual past when the event was current. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there's a good conversation one the article's talk page about notability. If the -event- is notable, or the book covering the event, then the material in this article could contribute to that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article (though renaming it would be fine). The content of this article is very obviously notable, as demonstrated by the sources, and belongs in one place. Whether the article is titled for the individual or the event is probably not terribly important, but it would be useful to have a reasonably descriptive name. ^Bongo_matic 08:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - the prize makes the events documented within notable, regardless of wether any other factors (such as the proven attempt to frame him) might independently do so. Has rceived apparantly signifigant coverage. Per WP:BLP1E he shouldn't have an article abouyt him for this single event. I note that BLP1E is a policy only for living people, but I believe it is also a sensible guideline more generally. The article should not be about Titus himself, but about his case. Steve Titus rape trial, perhaps? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not for news stories of the single-event type, and that's what this is (human tragedy or not). That his story was the basis for a journalist winning a Pulitzer is not, in my opinion enough. What I don't rightly understand is that there isn't an article for the convicted rapist, which is where this would fit in--and in that case a redirect would make sense. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - nomination invalid~~ Subject meets WP:GNG (nominator did not doubt this). As per second paragraph of GNG this subject does NOT have to also meet WP:BIO (including BLP1E). It's one or other (BIO or GNG) not both. Agree with Blood Red Sandman but don't delete just because of BLP1E. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The opinion offered that the nomination is invalid is not correct. BLP1E specifically excludes the conclusion of notability for certain events that meet the GNG. ^Bongo_matic 02:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: the nominator never said the subject met GNG, as far as I can tell, but it's not the point, anyway. WP:ONEEVENT and GNG are not at odds--ONEEVENT is a guideline that can allow us to decide for deletion even if GNG is met. (Edit conflict: I think I'm chiming in with Bongo, as usual--except for in our opinion here on deleting!) Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Time out, the terms "General Notability Guideline" or "GNG" are not ANYWHERE in BIO. What's referred to is Basic Criteria which are similar to but less than restrictive than GNG. Regardless, GNG says that if GNG is met than topic specific guidelines are optional (my undertanding from the quote that was removed). -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What BLP1E actually says (with my commentary in brackets) is:

If reliable [independent] sources cover [even if significantly] 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.

In other words, the magic token "GNG" doesn't need to be mentioned for its plain meaning to be that even something that is presumed notable under GNG is not subject to inclusion if it meets the criteria of BLP1E. There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

Further note that the GNG in its own words only gives rise to a presumption of notability, to be rebutted by WP:NOT (explicitly) or other restrictions (implicitly).

The interpretation advanced would remove any semblance of teeth from BLP1E or NOT. ^Bongo_matic 02:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename I'm changing my vote. This is place to discuss notability and not a discussion of the literal interpretation of guidelines. I see the events to be notable but not necessarily the accused. I propose the article be renamed Steve Titus rape case. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to agree that this is virtually a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Technically it isn't, as the news stories cover more than a single event, but I'm not convinced there's real longterm notability here: this is just a case of a man who was convicted of rape and then had his conviction overturned, with no indication of what makes it particularly important. The strongest claim to being article-worthy is that the coverage of the story won the Pulitzer prize; but so have many other news stories, and does that make them all notable? I don't think so (if anything, it's a claim to the notability of the person who wrote the article instead). Robofish (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, rewrite This information is all notable and documented in reliable sources; however, we should not keep it in a biography of Titus. Rather it should be in an article about the whole case – perhaps Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus – and rewritten so it is not a biography but an encyclopedic entry on the rape, wrongful conviction, subsequent confession by Smith, and perhaps this book. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/write The event seems notable, although I don't question the person himself could be considered in violation of BLP1E, but the event itself received coverage and has a long lasting impact. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge there is some potential in merging with Paul Henderson (journalist) as this news story won him the pulitzer and could be claimed to be the most important case of his career. Ash (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story was the basis of a Pulitzer prize. That's sufficient notability. The only reason for renaming is to avoid the undue emphasis on the name of a living individual, and this is irrelevant here. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 27 February 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.