Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Sebring

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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sebring[edit]

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

Simply put, this biography of a crime victim seems to fail WP:VICTIM ("The victim... had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role"). Except one 2002 NYT article ([1]) all sources I see mention him in passing; if he hasn't been killed by Manson, his life up to that point wouldn't make her notable. Per said policy ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.") the one-two relevant sentences should be merged to Charles_Manson#Tate_murders if the facts aren't there already (now, the Tate murders article should likely be split off into a subarticle, but that's another issue). Note that most of the article is not referenced anyway. See related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Folger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Parent. Pinging participants of the former: @Rhododendrites, MelanieN, Johnpacklambert, Cec2020, Bearian, and Lankiveil: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks for the ping. Yes, he fails WP:VICTIM, but he passes WP:GNG. He was quite notable for his hair styling career even before he was killed. According to sourced material in the article, he "invented a whole new way of cutting men's hair", and his techniques are still being taught 40 years after his death, via his still-existing company Sebring International. Seriously, I thought I had firmly established this person's notability with the recent sources I added: I doubled the prose portion of the article and added four new sources, all of which are about him and his career, not about the murders. The NYT article you linked to above is 3 pages long and is entirely, significantly about him and his hair styling career; it was written more than 30 years after his death which should establish his lasting significance. Oh, and as of 2013 a biopic movie about him was reportedly in the works.[2] If the murder portion of the article needs more sources, those can readily be added; but those are about the crime and thus are less important to the article than the material about HIM. --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He is indeed the most borderline of the discussed Tate victims, through I am still not convinced that one reliable source (NYT article) is sufficient. Notability demands multiple sources. Of course it's just a guideline, but... let's see what others think. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wojciech Frykowski. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - famous in life before death. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In these related AfDs, several people have suggested that a merge to a new article Tate murders would be better than a merge to Charles Manson. See Talk:Charles Manson#Split off Tate murders? to discuss this idea. MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per BabbaQ passes WP:GNG even before his murder. WordSeventeen (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2015 (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.