Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Anderson (2nd nomination)

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 was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Anderson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jesse Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - this guy killed his wife in 1992 and was himself killed in prison in 1994. No one would give him a second thought except that another prisoner was killed in the same attack, by the name of Jeffrey Dahmer. This guy fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:CRIMINAL. Nominated once previously and kept largely because of the supposed effect he had on the Northridge Mall but those rare reliable sources that link the murder to the mall's closing do so in one sentence (that starts with "Some people suggest") which offers no evidence in support of that supposition (the mall was open for 11 years after Anderson killed his wife and 9 years after Anderson's own death). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not 1E because there were two three events, regardless he was in the wrong place wrong time, GNG covers it. He is still being discussed to this day in magazines, books and journals; and it was covered in local, national and international press. Some additional sources follow:
-- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he had only killed his wife and not been attacked at the same time as Dahmer there is no way that he would pass any guideline. There are hundreds if not thousands of murderers whose crime gets covered in the local press and they don't and shouldn't have articles. The only event for which he could possibly be notable is being attacked at the same time as Dahmer. One event. Sources discuss the event of killing Dahmer to a great extent. they do not discuss Jesse Anderson in the sort of detail to sustain a separate article. "He killed his wife and then two years later he got killed at the same time as someone famous." That's all there is. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources show notable for three things: Killing of wife, death in prison, archetypal symbol of someone who used race during a crime (as discussed in multiple scholarly sources linked above). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not notable for killing his wife, any more than the hundreds of other murderers without articles are. Simply committing murder does not make one notable. That "archetypal symbol" nonsense is nonsense and an attempt to bootstrap the non-notable murder into something it's not. Getting attacked at the same time as someone notable does not confer notability. The simple fact remains that if this guy had been cleaning the kitchen instead there'd be no question of deletion. The notability of Dahmer is not inherited by the guy who was attacked in the same room with him. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your continued attempt to try and hide the sources by collapsing the thread is not appreciated.[1] It is standard and normal to list sources in AfD, that is what we are supposed to do, making it "easier to read" makes little sense when reading the sources is exactly the reason this AfD exist. Stop trying to hide the sources and interfering with the due process of this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not trying to "hide" the sources. Indeed, I hope many people look at your supposed "sources" and recognize that many of them merely mention this person in one or two sentence blurbs along the lines of "also attacked was" and so are not substantial coverage as mandated by notability guidelines. My intent was to make the overall nomination easier to read by reducing a gigantic block of difficult to read text to an expandable band. Your accusations of misconduct on my part are nothing but baseless and an abject failure to assume good faith. Shame on you. Stop trying to distract from the substance of the nomination with what amounts to a lie. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But by all means, let's more closely examine the sources upon which you hang your hat:
  • Gibson: A five-page anthropological study of violence that mentions Anderson in one sentence. Not substantive.
  • Russell-Brown: One paragraph out of an entire book. Not substantive.
  • Mayo: One sentence out of a 400 page book. Not substantive.
  • Fine: Three sentence out of a 300 page book. Not substantive.
  • Curry: Two sentences out of a 665 page book. Not substantive.
  • Coleman: three sentences out of a 440 page book. Not substantive.
  • And on and on it goes. One "source" after another that consist of nothing but "This guy was also attacked at the same time." Try reading what constitutes substantial coverage. One- and two- and three-sentence passing mentions don't come anywhere close. Any subject you can think of is likely to come up with hits if all you do is plug it into Google. Google hits are not a measure of notability and simply copying and pasting a dozen or so of them into an AFD not only is not an argument for retention, it's an indicator that the person doing it lacks certain fundamental understandings of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Come up with sources that aren't these two sentence nothings. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Significant coverage" is not a mathematical count of words. Significant coverage could be a couple sentences and be significant, depending on what those sentences are and in what context and sources. Furthermore, when someone has enough mentions in enough sources over time, the sheer mass of coverage itself becomes significant. Also some of these sources demonstrate the topic has been discussed as an archetypal racism case which obviously goes beyond "This guy was also attacked at the same time." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." (emphasis added) Repeating in 100 sources that this guy was attacked at the same time as Dahmer with no additional information does not somehow add up to significant coverage. And please, which of your many two-sentence passing mentions discuss this supposed "archetypal racism"? None of the two-sentence mentions I saw included this significant discussion that you claim. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject doesn't have an amazing depth of coverage, but it's quite broad and for more than one event that the individual was involved in. The sum is enough for me to keep it over the notability line, especially with existence of previous AfD that was an easy keep. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesse_Anderson_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1069057274"