Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Thacker

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 of the debate was No consensus --JAranda | watz sup 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thacker

[edit]

Bio of questionable notability. Does being a convicted criminal make one notable? ERcheck 07:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been polished a bit, and I'll agree, is borderline notable. Ben Aveling 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that my prose isn't fantastic (I'm an astronomy student, not a English major), but you should be looking at the topic, not the content of the article in deciding if it is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. The death penalty is a controversial issue in the United States, and every execution receives coverage in the national news media. I'd be interesting to know how we would decide who is "interesting" or not? Multiple murders? Rape involved? Children? Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Try Wikinews. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You go tell them that at 2005 French riots.  ;-) But I agree, wikinews would be a good place for an article about this. Ben Aveling 02:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about this man's death, more then so many others, sheds light on the death penalty debate? You chose this man deliberately, yes? So I assume there is something special about him. Now maybe it's just that he is somehow special to you. If that's the case, you should be creating knowledge; put down your feelings and post that as a blog, or to your local paper, or to a relevant mailing list. If he is or should be special to us, then tell us why! Either way, write from the heart, not the head. We can fix your prose, but we can't inject spark if there's not life to begin with. Good luck. Ben Aveling 09:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I chose him is that he is the next person to be executed in the United States, with his execution scheduled to be on 9 November 2005. Evil Monkey∴Hello 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - a quick google finds the claim that "3,581 offenders were under sentence of death in the United States as of December 31, 2001". This seems too many to warrant separate articles on all of them. A summary page may perhaps be more appropriate. Average Earthman 09:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment on the comment - I venture the opinion that the vast majority of the 3581 will die of old age; I think EM is on to something that a real encyclopedic-like purpose could be served in chronicaling the facts behind and about the relatively few that are actually executed (and their victims, I would add).
  • postscript to comment on the comment Capital_punishment tells us that there were 59 executions in the US last year, about 3X the number of hurricanes. At that rate, 60 years would be required to clear the backlog of condemned prisoners. FRS 04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt being in the death row is a case for notability itself. Case does not stand out from others. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza
  • Weak keep I personally don't see a reason to have biographies of random murderers who are sentenced to death, there are so many murderers and they don't seem special to me. However, a number of the murderers Evil Monkey lists above are no more noteworthy than Thacker, and it would be inconsistent to keep them and delete this one. I am not suggesting that we should keep an article that merits deletion just because other articles that might merit it didn't get nominated, just that the continued existence of so many articles on 'ordinary' murderers suggests a consensus consistent with keeping the Thacker article. GhostGirl 13:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This person is not just any convicted murderer. He is the next scheduled execution in the United States. I'm not proposing that we start writing articles on every death row inmate, just the ones that are actually executed. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Evil Monkey∴Hello 18:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Information is verifable and notable. —Cleared as filed. 18:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, very notable death row inmate, next scheduled execution in U.S., likely to be in news a great deal, people should be able to find information on him in Wikipedia. Babajobu 18:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly committed a notable crime. Bio reads like the actual newsstory. --InShaneee 23:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears notable, but in need of cleanup. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no change to my vote. If someone deems his execution noteworthy enough for Wikipedia notice, the appropriate place would be List of people who were executed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERcheck (talk • contribs)
  • Delete a non notable murderer, come on! shouldn't even be considered to keep--Westernriddell 06:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep - this is a newsworthy event, it received adequate coverage, and his appeal set a certain standard for the application of the death penalty. There is no question that he and all others executed should have at least a basic article about them, if only for the crimes they committed. We are cataloguing all of the human experience. Danny 13:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies the criterion of being more notable than Koga (Pokémon). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-10 14:20
  • Keep. The purpose of Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia" and that means that certain topics are going to be able to be kept updated and included than in the "Encyclopedia Brittanica" or what not. Also, if the Thacker article is cleaned up, and more research done on the man, the crime, and whatnot, then it could be a valuble asset down the road. Further, I like to see biographies on such things, if for nothing else than to give an understanding as to why the individual was put to death, what the individual's last meal, and last words were. Remember, an insignificant peice of data to us, down the road could be vital in the understanding of the future.Soldan 16:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Soldan. Andres 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Danny and Soldan. Why? Because if this encyclopedia is to cover such important topics as criminology and penology then this kind of data is useful now and is going to be only more useful in the future, when someone might really want to go back and explore the death penalty in the U.S. We have precious little knowledge of why people were put to death in 19th century America, let alone, say, ancient Egypt; think of how important that kind of material is historically and sociologically. As Brian0918 suggests, this is more important than some other entries, such as the score of every cricket match played in England. Bruxism 20:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest we have consensus to keep. Ben Aveling 21:02, 10 November 2005 (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/Charles_Thacker&oldid=1185335558"