Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prisoners with whole-life tariffs

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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 22:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of prisoners with whole-life tariffs

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

Oh dear. Where should I begin with this? Firstly, there are several unsourced entries, and several people on this list are not notable/have no articles of their own. Some fall into both categories. Secondly, this list is entirely UK centred. Thirdly, I'm failing to see how this is anything other than WP:LISTCRUFT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And clean-up. Remove anything unsourced (shouldn't be that difficult to find a WP:RS for any entry here). So what if several people don't have their own article? See WP:SAL for more. If it's UK-centric, then a simple re-name of the article is needed. Being handed a whole-life tariff is quite notable in its own right. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup as necessary per Lugnuts. Of course this is UK-centric. Whole-life tariffs are a UK feature. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Regarding the fact that some people on the list do not have an article, I would say such a list is appropriate for summarising the cases of those offenders who do not meet the notability requirements for having a separate article, per the one-event exception described in WP:LISTPEOPLE. Perhaps a rename would help clarify it is UK-centric, but the first paragraph makes that clear. I would oppose exapnding the scope of the article since each country has its own procedures surrounding life imprisonment. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and easily sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -clearly notable. per.WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up, as per the rationale of Lugnuts and others above. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 28 March 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.