Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. In particular I note that the article has recently undergone substantial revision which was not effectively addressed by many of those who posted early !votes favoring deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Wilbur Ernesto Martinez-Guzman (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)

Individual is known only for one event. Per WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." –dlthewave ☎ 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is inaccurate. As per their statement here, they are arguing (quite reasonably) that this page is a WP:G10 speedy deletion candidate. As per speedy deletion criteria they blanked the page except for the speedy deletion template. This isn't disruption, it's the correct way of handling a WP:G10 page. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG indeed. Per coverage, per reliable sources. Trumps comments also goes for notability.BabbaQ (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article focuses on a person, not the crime. And Trump's emphasis on the immigration status of the suspect is prominent throughout this article-- in Trump's case, a rank appeal to prejudice for a political purpose, which unfortunately is served by this article. (There once was a time when a president slipped and stated that a suspect was guilty, and realizing his error, withdrew the statement and emphasized the presumption of innocence.) This is an article about the suspect, and not a carefully-worded article about the crime. Kablammo (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear case of WP:BLPCRIME combined with WP:RECENT which should be enough to show this article's existence is unacceptable. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 01:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BLPCRIME issue, as well as no evidence of lasting significance — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When the suspect's name and photo has been published in the New York Times[2], it's no longer something that needs to be shush-shush in Wikipedia. And obviously there are a plethora of examples of articles that have suspect names from high-profile cases before judgments. As with all BLPs, editors should be careful not to add additional material from non-RS. --Pudeo (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OSE is not justification for a page existing. Are there other pages that violate WP:BLPCRIME? Yes. Should we keep this one? No! Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, who is claiming OSE, I don't see it. I see plenty of good rationales for Keeping the article. BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - A speedy deletion tag has been placed on this article over and over again. Possibly effecting the result here as the AfD tag was not visible during this time. In my opinion a disruptive action, and continued by the nominator for this AfD.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Simonm223 has just BLANKED the page [3]. This is the 4th time this page has been blanked in the last couple of hours, by Simon223, by MShabazz, and by the Nom of this page who replaced the blanking when it had been reverted (by me, unaware that page creator cannot remove such a template.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I've just noted it in the page history, but consider that G10 tag declined on my part. I don't think we need to get into whether it should or shouldn't be tagged while at AfD, and I don't think there's any value in discussing anyone's behavior in that process, so hopefully we can just continue with the AfD as usual. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Effectively what this statement is saying is that the users who have been creating crime articles have been acting without regard for WP:BLPCRIME for long enough that they no longer consider it, and WP:LIBEL to be worth considering. Not when there's juicy newsmedia hay to make. This is unencyclopedic and harmful to Wikipedia as a project. It's also deeply WP:DISRUPTive that they continue creating these and forcing reasonable editors to police a constantly shifting terrain of WP:BLPCRIME violating hit-pieces. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's quite common for editors within a certain topic area to develop their own common practices and, sometimes, bad habits. Central forums such as AfD play an important role in applying our community standards regardless of what the common practice may be. In this case the relevant policies and guidelines advise discretion and caution in publishing information about suspects, and the BLPCRIME policy takes priority over guidelines such as WP:PERPETRATOR (even calling them a perpetrator is problematic in many cases). Per WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." In this case, although they have received media coverage, we are still dealing with Wikipedia's definition of a low-profile person. –dlthewave ☎ 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. We handle these cases according to our policies and guidelines, regardless of what editors in that topic area happen to be doing. –dlthewave ☎ 17:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I dont really see why you keep capitalizing COMMON as though that means something. Because our policies are actually what document our common practices and standards of editing, and WP:BLP is a policy. That editors routinely violate that policy to the point where one of them claims it is a common practice means something very different from we should stop enforcing the policy. It means that WP:NEWBLPBAN needs to start being used to enforce that policy. nableezy - 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately the United States being a country rooted in the common law system is so entirely irrelevant that E.M.Gregory's repeated references to it, up to and including what appears to be an attempt to try and present it as if it had something to do wit WP:COMMON just strikes of more WP:TEND civil POV pushing. I hope, if any admins choose to take action with regard to this situation that this is taken into consideration. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is this users second !vote in this AfC - I hope a strike-through of one or the other is forthcoming shortly. I also find the requests to move the content to be deeply tendentious all things considered. It's WP:DISRUPTive to require editors to play whack-a-mole in order to ensure WP:LIBEL violating material stays off the site with multiple rapid related page creations. This also seems like an attempt to circumvent WP:AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Libel" is a well-defined legal concept, but it does not apply to individuals whose actions have made them well-known public figures, a concept that has been routinely applied in Anglo American law for centuries with regard to individuals who commit well-publicized crimes. While I understand that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, it is important to respect settled fact of law. It is a fact that writing an article about a criminal whose name has been splashed across pages nationwide - whether writing in a blog, in an newspaper, or in Wikipedia, is NOT libelous.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you looked at your own edit history? Well over half of it is dedicated to pages somehow related to immigrants who have committed crime. The rest seems to be concentrated on notable Israelis or wierd far-left terrorists. This is not the edit history of a healthy mind. NickCT (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is accurate. You want to go line-by-line through your history? Look.... I'm not trying to be a hater, but my suggestion to you is that you take a self-imposed wikibreak from immigrant crime articles. Write about sports, or flowers, or cats, or any number of other things that make this world a beautiful place. You'll find that if you focus on the good stuff, you won't want to hate so much. NickCT (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern was not that you changed your !vote to "keep and move" it was that you were maintaining two separate lines that were presented as !votes. Furthermore, your conduct here remains deeply WP:TEND and I sincerely hope that whoever closes this mess at least gives you a formal warning for your comportment. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth mentioning that the suspect has confessed.XavierItzm (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act". Not only that, but there is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. XavierItzm (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and rename topic meets GNG, but it should be renamed to avoid any potential BLPCRIME vio. If renamed, I'm confident it will be consistent with all relevant policies.97.70.177.110desmay (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least this should be renamed immediately. E.M.Gregory, you should know better. And next, this should be proofread because it's atrocious--I mean, seriously, it's pathetic. Third, the article should be pruned ruthlessly of the unencyclopedic and salacious detail. "...residents advised to leave outdoor lights on at night, lock doors, and keep a cellphone with them at all times"--sheesh. Who wrote this? Who thought this detail was in any way helpful or objective? Shall we not have a discussion on whether it's better to leave outdoor lights on or off? And why am I reading content about relatives and hobbies? Is the author going to provide that for all the victims of, I don't know, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? Isn't this laying on of detail a pretty blatant piece of sensationalism? Drmies (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that page has been renamed to avoid BLP issues.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would this be here if Trump hadn’t made something of it; and would he have made something of it if the suspect hadn’t been Hispanic? That is, will WP end up adding crimes because the suspected criminals are Hispanic? WP:BLPCRIME O3000 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone renamed the article 2019 Nevada killing spree. Its about the crime, which is clearly notable, not just the person. Ample media attention to pass WP:GNG. Dream Focus 21:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The incident by itself is not notable and has no long-lasting significance. The only reason for this page to be created is the false claim by D.Trump about illegal immigrants committing mass crimes in the US and using this case as an example. However, that claim by Trump belongs to pages about Trump and his policies. This does not justify creating separate pages, such as that one. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have been well covered, but no one has been convicted yet. The fact that Donnie has pipped up about this makes it notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After the rename the main problem has been solved. Meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nom's problem is solved. The incident itself is very notable because of the coverage of the Lenny Skutniks. This public-domain photo of the surviving family is great. It's a shame that editors above want to delete because they incorrectly frame Trump's statements about illegal immigration – as Trump tends to point out that even one murder by an illegal immigrant is too much to him. And mass crimes are happening; here's a story just from yesterday [4] about drug overdose, and most of the drugs came from – Mexico. wumbolo ^^^ 12:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- has received national news coverage in multiple sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The crimes (not the bio)) easily meets GNG and NCRIME, with wide national continuing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The incident by itself is not notable and has no long-lasting significance … … belongs on pages about Trump and his policies" per My very best wishes. There the political use can be given context as that use is the only claim to significance. 10:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)
  • Comment Trump being interested is not a signifier that this crime is notable. Nor, sadly, is it being a spree killing since those happen in the United States almost daily. So far, there's no evidence that coverage of this all-too-common tragedy is anything other than WP:ROUTINE. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and it's WP:NOTMEMORIAL as such, I'd suggest that claims that, "Trump tweeted about it, so it's notable," fail to reach even the far-too generous bar for notability of WP:NCRIME. Frankly, if Wikipedia's notability guidelines break down to, "a demented old man tweeted about it," then we have a pretty serious problem with the project. And while this may shock American editors, the relevance of the opinion of the American head of state was never as big as they estimated, and it has never been smaller. Simonm223 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- has received national news coverage in multiple sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PE65000 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 2019 Nevada Killing Spree as suggested. When opinion si as divided as it is here, a compromise solution is often best. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think DGG's suggestion has merit, but I am too wimpy to implement it without further discussion. Consensus has yet to develop in any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the article was created because the suspected perp may be an illegal immigrant and for no other reason. There exist an enormous number of crimes that are not DUE. The BLP issues still exist. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and we should keep in mind that this is one of a group of articles about crimes that may have been committed by illegal immigrants by an editor who has now been Topic Banned from articles like this. O3000 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as moot and relist The article was moved prior to the afd listing being closed, making this discussion moot. While it does not appear to me that there was a clear consensus for this move, I'm not going to revert it. I believe the best way forward is to close this afd, and open a new rfd listing for the redirect and, possibly, an afd listing for 2019 Nevada killing spree. UninvitedCompany 17:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite incredibly convoluted - not to say unintelligible - lengthy discussion, this appears to be a straightforward article about a notable crime spree.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are a lot of keep !votes above along the lines of "all the issues have been resolved." The BLPCRIME issue was indeed an urgent issue, but even if that's largely resolved, there's still basic notability. As we know is routine for such a topic, there was a flurry of news coverage within a short time after the events. We need evidence of lasting significance, though. A Google News search looking for how the subject has been covered in the first half of March (still only a short time after the initial news cycle, and thus which would just start to show lasting significance), returns one hit, and that's just a mention in a story about a different topic. Maybe the initial round of coverage is enough to make people want to wait and see, but if so, we'll certainly want to revisit it down the road to make sure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 13 March 2019 (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/Wilbur_Ernesto_Martinez-Guzman&oldid=1079436479"