Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

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. Sandstein 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah[edit]

I shudder as I write this rationale, but this entry is just about a run-of-the-mill child molester and murderer. There is nothing unique about his case. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: keep it or delete it, I don't care. Lately the article has attracted the attention of an anon editor with unsubstantiated claims that Bar-Jonah was a "war hero." __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Apparently his case was used in the context of lobbying/campaigning for sex-offender registration laws which makes him more than just a random criminal. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Unfortunately like a thousand other child molesters, why is it here in the first place? Good grief, there are other Web sites for listings of non-notable criminals. Proxy User (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. This is the second freak that I've seen in AFD today. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources saying he was any more notable than being the murderer that the nom said. Changed to Weak Keep per Pixelface --Banime (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Nathaniel Bar-Jonah was a notable cannibal.[1] [2] [3] He was profiled on the 1st and 8th episode of the television series Most Evil. I don't think WP:NOT#NEWS or WP:ONEEVENT apply here at all. --Pixelface (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well they say accused cannibal, but I'd still say that's enough for notability. I'll change my !vote to weak keep. --Banime (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote changed to keep: Coverage other than articles that are newsy and featured in a television series. Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which counts as significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing notoriety due to appeals to Supreme Court of the United States. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? He's dead. That makes the appeals moot, yes? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Bearian, was it the State of Montana Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court? DGG (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despicable, but evidently notable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sick dude glad he's dead...Some one needs to ban the IP for the idiot who keeps changing it to "war hero". Isn't the fact he's overriding Just Plain Bill's edits over and over cause for banning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage demonstrates notability. Everyking (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2008 (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.