Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Lawrence McGillvary (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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Lawrence McGillvary[edit]

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

This is going to be a bit of an interesting nomination and a little bit of a complicated one. Long story short, I created the article a few years ago and I had assumed at the time that the coverage for the crime would be enough to overcome concerns about notability and WP:ONEEVENT. There was also some optimistic (albeit misplaced) assertion that the trial would occur soon and the WP:NCRIME concerns brought up by NorthBySouthBaranof would become moot.

Since then the trial has yet to occur and I've become more familiar in general with BLP and NCRIME, enough to where I really don't think that Kai would currently pass notability guidelines. He's received coverage for the initial "Kai the hatchet-wielding hitchhiker" news video, but he hasn't actually been tried for the murder yet and I'm not exactly sure when it'll happen, although of course it likely will. (There are some exceptions here and there, but by large everyone has their day in court.) This means that we can't really use the coverage for the crime as justification for an article and the coverage of his news video isn't really deep enough to cleanly pass on that criteria alone. I also have to note that for a period of time there seems to have been Kai supporters using the page as a place to promote their cause, although that's declined over the last few years.

I also based my argument on the fact that Kai had continued to gain coverage for the news video itself within the same year, but since then the coverage for the video has been almost nonexistent and when he is covered (which is rare now) it's for the murder and it's usually by the same source, NJ.com. This doesn't really show a good depth of coverage. There was initially quite a bit of coverage for the news video, but it was all from the same time period.

I asked about this at BLP/N last month, where I asked the advice of DGG, who felt that the article as it currently stands shows no lasting importance. (Pinging him so he can know about the AfD.)

What I'm essentially lobbying for is for this to be deleted or sent to the draftspace/userspace until the trial occurs, upon which point this can be re-created. Basically, I now feel that my argument at the last AfD was flawed and this AfD is a chance to rectify this until more coverage comes about. It's likely that he will gain more coverage, but we can't guarantee that if he was tried tomorrow that it wouldn't just end in a quiet resolution without much attention from the media. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator says-- no lasting importance; furthermore , he has not yet been convicted of a crime. Not strictly one event, but still a violation of BLP and WP:TABLOID. BLP applies everywhere in WP; at least the principles of BLP surely do, though I have argued elsewhere that it is not entirely clear to what extent all the detailed provisions and interpretations apply outside mainspace in particular situations. However, I think that having this sort of material as an article draft, whether in user space or draft space, is an example of where it does apply with the same rigour. And I think I would still oppose an article on this even if he were convicted, on the basis of NOT TABLOID and BLP CRIME. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair - I have no objections to this being deleted entirely and remaining deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, and a barnstar to Tokyogirl79 for taking a fresh and self-critical look at whether this topic can really be written about encyclopedically. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's nothing at all actually convincing of a solidly keepable article, still questionable and with nothing else convincing here, Delete. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 2 June 2016 (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.