Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Mirasolo

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Mirasolo[edit]

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

This article is about a convicted sex offender who was (shockingly) granted joint custody of his son. It is entirely WP:TOOSOON to know if this will become a case of lasting encyclopedic significance, but I highly doubt it. As it stands, this article is the perfect textbook example of WP:ONEEVENT; all of the references in the article were published within a single 48-hour window. We'll almost certainly never hear of the subject again and there's no potential for an encyclopedic article here. A Train^talk 10:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think A Train's comment, "We'll almost certainly never hear of the subject again" says it all. It is the event that briefly made it into the news anyway, not really the individual. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. 1E does apply since the coverage of his crimes wouldn't get past WP:PERP. Heinious as it was, his previous crime was not notable. The only reason there's coverage outside of his local area is this..... one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:TOOSOON. Note coverage extends for 10 days (from 9 Oct to today). BPL1E doesn't apply (he's known for a number of separate sex convictions, and the custody). Nor am I sure that we'll never hear about him again as such a miscarriage of justice has a tendency to work itself into future references. However, as coverage is focused on the current (already reversed) judicial error (though the coverage does extend to cover the sex convictions) - we don't see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. WP:RAPID would apply to the judicial error itself (if an article is created on it), and not on the BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a major example of recentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2017 (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.