Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Whitlock

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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Whitlock[edit]

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

Fails WP:N/CA. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 14:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 14:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the original editor of the article. Brian Whitlock is notable The article has multiple reliable sources from reputable news organizations. Brian Whitlock was convicted and is to be sentenced on June 12th for animal cruelty. The cruelty inflicted on his dog was severe and caused the death of the animal. The general public became outraged causing several protests by animal rights groups. The animal cruelty incident and the protests received significant coverage in the media. This makes Brian Whitlock notable, the animal cruelty incident notable, the protests Whitlock caused notable and the media coverage notable. This article should not be deleted. IQ125 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case is notable because it got 130,000 people to sign a petition. And the politicians might see this and decide to pass harsher sentences, although just having that many people sign a petition over something makes it clearly a notable event. Dream Focus 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, AndyTheGrump is a classic case of participating in an AFD discussion without reading the article and reliable sources. IQ125 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine comments to the subject of this discussion, rather than making disparaging remarks about individuals. WP:CRYSTALBALL is entirely relevant to statement about what politicians 'might' do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Focus on the "it got 130,000 people to sign a petition" part of my statement then. Dream Focus 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content is not determined by petition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An event is notable if it causes 130,000 people to sign a petition. Dream Focus 15:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite actual policy in these discussions, rather than making it up as you go along. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

130,000 people isn't that many. Two percent of the BC population. That's even assuming it was a real physical petition circulated only among BC residents and not a bunch of anonymous Internet petition sites, whose numbers would be entirely gameable and therefore suspect. I googled "brian whitlock" petition and only found a bunch of online petitions. Is there a source that says this was a verifiable physical pen-and-paper petition? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The newspaper articles are primarily about the crime not about the person Brian Whitlock. Anyway People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. and In particular, 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 a biographical article on that individual. WP:N Optimale ^Gu 15:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about the event. It just needs to be renamed. Dream Focus 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA all apply. Not notable. Giant Snowman 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, per WP:BLP1E considerations, and per general notability questions. Sadly, acts of animal cruelty are not rare: but then neither are many other acts of violence. Wikipedia isn't here to put the world to rights, and such criminal acts are rarely notable enough to merit an article concerning the perpetrator. I can see no evidence that this event has any enduring notability, and without this, the article simply can't be justified. To be specific, Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons states that "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article" and that "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and on those grounds, the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a place to shame people. We can never have an encyclopedic biography of this person, because we will never know more about them than "they were cruel to a dog and were convicted and imprisoned." At best, the *event* might be notable, not the person. But that would support a page on the event, not an alleged "biography" which isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:ONEEVENT p b p 16:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Delete !votes. This does not have major international coverage, and it won't be enduring coverage. A petition by itself won't make a subject notable, only if that petition has widespread coverage.Martin451 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS or BLP-1E, your choice. Carrite (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and BLP1E--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. As sad as acts of animal cruelty may be, they're not in and of themselves sufficient to make a person notable enough to be permanently included in an encyclopedia, except in extraordinary circumstances which I don't see being claimed here. Public shaming of criminals is not what we're here for. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2013 (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.