Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timmy White
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. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to his lack of interviews and appearances, over the years, I gather this person wants his privacy. He is not a public figure anymore thus the article should go. Fighting for Justice 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability does not expire. We don't delete articles on people because there has been no news in a while. Phony Saint 03:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Perhaps, it needs to be reexamined. I believe he is a part of the Steven Stayner kidnapping. I think it is better to mention him in the Steven Stayner article. However, outside the kidnapping we know nothing about Timmy White himself that would warrant it's own article. He did not become an advocate of any sort. I don't believe he meets all the notability, and he never asked to be a public figure or a footnote in someone else's abduction. His notability wasn't even assessed. Fighting for Justice 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this AfD is an attempt at making a point stemming from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Smart (abductee), then this should be speedily kept. If not, I would think that the movie would give him enough recognition to be notable. A merge wouldn't be out of the question, however. Phony Saint 04:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but the case of Ben Ownby does parallel Timmy White. They were both kidnapped by an abductor who had an older boy as a captive. And I don't see why we can't question White's notability when White appears to be living his life in privacy. With that, I think it is wrong to have an article about him. He clearly doesn't want to be in the limelight, and a wikipedia article in his name is giving him a limelight. Fighting for Justice 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any more limelight than being a character in a movie/miniseries which was broadcast on NBC and Lifetime. Unlike Ownby, he's not a minor anymore. Phony Saint 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a good comparison. Those people made the choice to be in them, and we don't have biographies for every Joe Average that appear on TV. White is not a public figure, and wikipedia isn't going to be any less of an encyclopedia if we remove an article named after him. He can be mentioned in the Parnell and Stayner articles. Fighting for Justice
- Not any more limelight than being a character in a movie/miniseries which was broadcast on NBC and Lifetime. Unlike Ownby, he's not a minor anymore. Phony Saint 04:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but the case of Ben Ownby does parallel Timmy White. They were both kidnapped by an abductor who had an older boy as a captive. And I don't see why we can't question White's notability when White appears to be living his life in privacy. With that, I think it is wrong to have an article about him. He clearly doesn't want to be in the limelight, and a wikipedia article in his name is giving him a limelight. Fighting for Justice 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this AfD is an attempt at making a point stemming from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Smart (abductee), then this should be speedily kept. If not, I would think that the movie would give him enough recognition to be notable. A merge wouldn't be out of the question, however. Phony Saint 04:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Perhaps, it needs to be reexamined. I believe he is a part of the Steven Stayner kidnapping. I think it is better to mention him in the Steven Stayner article. However, outside the kidnapping we know nothing about Timmy White himself that would warrant it's own article. He did not become an advocate of any sort. I don't believe he meets all the notability, and he never asked to be a public figure or a footnote in someone else's abduction. His notability wasn't even assessed. Fighting for Justice 03:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Being the victim of a famous crime is the only claim to notability, and that information is covered by Kenneth Parnell. Feeeshboy 03:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep invalid reason for deletion. Why don't we delete the article for Queen Elizibeth I while we're at it, she hasn't been interviewed in a while. Whsitchy 06:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Did you even read any of my other comments, before you added your blithe commentary? I'm saying the person is a non-public figure and lives in privacy. His only reason for an article is because his abductor had an older kid captive, outside of that we know nothing about him. Fighting for Justice 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there have been AfD's in the past started because of an e-mail of a living person who was on wikipedia. Even those were keep (not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Plus, can you prove he wants a private life? That would make me switch to delete. Whsitchy 06:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I can not, however, if he did he would have little or no problem gaining it - as result of being kidnapped by a infamous pedophile. His first public appearance was at the age of 5, which happened the day after he and Steven got rescued. At 14, he attended Stayner's funeral. He stayed out of legal problems,married and is a father of 2 kids. His next public appearance was in 2004, at the sentencing hearing for the man who kidnapped him when he was 5. Besides, I should not have to prove a negative. I should not have to prove that a person who really has been obscured most of his life is obscured. Almost as nonsensical as your Queen Elizabeth comparison. Fighting for Justice 06:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there have been AfD's in the past started because of an e-mail of a living person who was on wikipedia. Even those were keep (not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Plus, can you prove he wants a private life? That would make me switch to delete. Whsitchy 06:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If only because there was a movie/book made about the event. Questions of whether this should be incorporated into an article on the main person involved are another matter, and given the recent contentious discussion on this kind of subject, I don't know if it'll be settled here. FrozenPurpleCube 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and as far as it goes, we can't assume anything about this person's desires, and the idea that a person can have the article on them deleted simply because they wish it is troublesome as it smacks of censorship. FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna go keep here. The assumption that he wants privacy means nothing unless Mr. White himself comes to WP and asks to remove the article, and aside from that, per discussion, notability doesn't expire. Let it stand, please. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Historically important. --Nricardo 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability does not expire, and when did we start reading the minds of article subjects? Perhaps George W. Bush wants his privacy, too. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there never was an assessment that he was notable. Some person created the article, because he was kidnapped but other then that there is no other notability about him. According to WP:NPF Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person. I think a redirect to Kenneth Parnell or Steven Stayner is the proper thing to do. Fighting for Justice 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is not arbitrary in statement, only endowment. I agree the article could be merged, but I don't see the necessity of doing so. DDB 06:43, 5 June 2007 (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.