Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Legebokoff

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. There are civilized countries in the world where the media refrains from reporting a defendant's name until he is found guilty. Canada is apparently not one of those countries. I do not find BLP relevant when multiple newspapers have already reported the defendant's name and have given this "trial of the century" style treatment. Another AfD when the trial concludes would not be insensible. Shii (tock) 15:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Legebokoff[edit]

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

This individual has not yet been tried. As per WP:BLPCRIME, articles about persons who have been accused but not convicted of crimes and are otherwise not notable are usually not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As proposer, I still support deletion after the questionable move. The questionable move is under discussion at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:XBALL. No opinion on whether this article or any content should be moved to an article on the series of murders itself: if so, a redirect should not be retained unless and until a conviction is secured. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. I can see the argument per "not bureaucracy" that the article may as well be written now, but for the greater good there should be no precedent of creating an article that would only exist if the subject were a notable criminal before the person is convicted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME says only "serious consideration" should be given prior to creating an article, the intent of the policy being not to generate widespread publicity for a presumably innocent person where such publicity does not already exist. In this case, however, "serious consideration" does not rise to overwhelm the massive and intractable coverage that has been generated by this highly publicized trial, with 34 stories reported by the CBC alone. The policy, therefore, does not in this case trump GNG and the article meets standards. BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per WP:N/CA "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act." This is not a routine alleged crime but a major, headline-grabbing trial of an alleged serial killer that has received a wide amount of national and international press attention over a period of three years. The National Post alone has run 14 separate stories on Legebokoff. The CBC has run 39 stories in three years. Reporting has occurred in the U.S., Britain, and Australia as well, consistently and over a period of time. Even if the accused is acquitted, his arrest and trial will still be a notable event (frankly, it will be even more notable if he's acquitted, but I'm not gonna crystal ball that). BlueSalix (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, WP:N/CA has to do with articles about crimes, not about persons accused of the crimes. It refers for instance to a disappearance of a person that is thought to be due to criminal activity, not to the person who is thought to have disappeared the victim. An article about the murders is appropriate, but this article is about someone who may or may not be a murderer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:BLPCRIME, it says only that "serious consideration" must be given to not identifying an accused person by name. This is not a commandment that names may not be used but a suggestion to preserve privacy, where privacy continues to exist. Given the widespread publication of this extremely high-profile trial, with gross media impressions surpassing the hundreds of millions, it is beyond all bounds of common sense to suggest the "serious consideration" outlined in BLPCRIME applies here as the veil of privacy has been breached to an intractable degree. I suppose I'd have no objection if we want to rename this article "Cody Legebekoff Trial" or "Crown vs. Legebekoff," but deletion is wholly inappropriate and, honestly, ridiculous to the point of this bordering on a nuisance nomination. BlueSalix (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLPCRIME applies to people, not their alleged crimes. Regardless of the amount of coverage pre-trial, Legebokoff is innocent until proven guilty. Since nobody can predict the outcome of the trial, the premise for the existence of this article is pure speculation. Content like who he was dating at the time of his arrest is in no way encyclopedic. If (and only if) he is found guilty the article can be recreated, subject to the usual requirements. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. BLPCRIME recognizes exceptions by stating "serious consideration;" as opposed to an absolute standard. This is one of the exceptions anticipated by BLPCRIME as we are in a situation where: (a) if he is acquitted, the article will meet GNG due to the sheer, overwhelming volume of international coverage which has intractably breached the veil of privacy BLPCRIME exists to protect (see: George Zimmerman), (b) if he is convicted, the article will meet GNG because he was convicted. IOW, whether he is acquitted or convicted, the article will exist. I understand a number of people are weighing-in here supposing this is a run-of-the-mill criminal trial and, if that were true, I would be inclined to support delete also. But it is not. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the volume, intensity, and breadth of global coverage this trial has received which makes it a standalone event regardless of Legebokoff's guilt or innocence. For the fourth time, BLPCRIME does not describe an absolute standard, the phrase "serious consideration should be given" simply establishes a higher threshold that must be met for inclusion. The basis for a BLPCRIME argument for delete is that an article does not meet the high threshold demanded, not that BLPCRIME requires all articles about presumed innocent persons be deleted. There appears to be a great deal of confusion here about what BLPCRIME says. BlueSalix (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me BlueSalix, but you seem to be missing the point here. If the article was titled Arrest and trial of Cody Legebokoff, which is its current topic, it might be notable based on the coverage. But it isn't and Wikipedia is not in the business of judging whether a person is guilty or not guilty. Until such time as that is determined, Legebokoff remains non-notable because he is not notable for anything else other than the alleged crime. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary, I said above (I guess you chose not to read the AfD before weighing in), I have no problem with that title. Since you're okay with it, too, I'll go ahead rename it now so we can close this AfD. BlueSalix (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article "Cody Legebokoff" now no longer exists. The article "Trial of Cody Legebokoff" does, however, exist. If you still support delete, please restate your arguments at this time. BlueSalix (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Still delete and possibly sanction BlueSalix for a WP:POINT violation (don't argue that Philg88 pushed you to do it). A rose by any other name is still a rose, and an article titled in such a way to not be a biography can still violate BLP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. The time stamp shows I called, in my reply to Robert McClenon, for this page to be renamed "Trial of ..." more than four hours before Philg88 subsequently suggested it. I would say Mendaliv may need to be sanctioned for a WP:GAME violation, however, for trying to obfuscate this fact. This is a discussion, Mendaliv, not BattleWiki. We're here to debate, not kneecap or "take out" the opposition. Please approach this AfD with that sensibility. BlueSalix (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be absolutely clear here, I did not suggest that the article be renamed, but rather posed a hypothetical question as part of the justification for deletion under the original title. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I apologize if I misinterpreted you. However, for future reference, an AfD is not the place for thought experiments, hypothetical musings, or sarcasm; we're here for clear and concise discussion, not to attempt divine and interpret the nuances of cutting points, subtle jibes, and artistic flourishes. BlueSalix (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Relax. The article will be undeleted just as soon as a conviction is recorded, and the edit history will be restored. There is no need to restate the BLPCRIME arguments as they are self-evidently correct, despite an application of lipstick. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd still support deletion or a move to an article about the killings, per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:PERP. I'd also note that it's entirely possible this individual will be acquitted... I'm not up on Canadian search and seizure law, but it seems like there are definite issues that need to be addressed. The way the article currently paints things—essentially that by making X claim the individual subjected himself to an administrative search not requiring nearly the due process of law that would have otherwise been afforded to a criminal suspect—is kind of suspicious from a NPOV standpoint in my view. But I digress. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to an article about the killings, from Cody Legebokoff to Trial of Cody Legebokoff. I agree, it's quite possible Legebokoff will be acquitted, which is why the article is about the trial as a standalone GNG-compliant event, and not Cody Legebokoff as an individual. If this were a WP:BIO it would have a person infobox, or mention things about his relationships, neither of which it has/does. Right now I don't have any idea what you're arguing. You post "DELETE," then say you don't actually want it deleted but just renamed, then post "DELETE" again after it's been renamed, then subsequently reaffirm that you don't actually want it deleted. For the benefit of the reviewing admin, I kindly ask you take a step back, collect your thoughts, and re-present your position so it can be more easily comprehended. BlueSalix (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want this article title deleted because it violates WP:BLP. Even if convicted, this would be the wrong article title. The crimes are what are possibly notable. Find what the media called them and start an article—and don't just move this one. If you think my position is incomprehensible, I think you could stand to do some more reading on Wikipedia policy. These are standard arguments for articles on people accused of crime. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The media are calling it the "Country Boy Killer Trial" (the five murders themselves were only connected to each other at the point of indictment; they did not have a collective name outside the context of the trial as with other serial killings [e.g. Green River Killings, etc.]). So, I have to respectfully disagree with your implicit request we rename the article from "Trial of Cody Legebokoff" to "Country Boy Killer Trial." That seems inappropriate. I would like to counter, however, with a suggestion you read up on the topic on which you're weighing-in before offering these ideas like "rename it to whatever the media are calling it." As we can see, that's a bit of a recipe for disaster and decidedly POV. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. BlueSalix (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a high profile case and as such should be kept. The issues are the title (possibly fixed by the move; the common name of the crimes themselves [if there is one] would likely be an even better title) and the fact it is still framed a bit like a bio (it should start with the crimes, then have info on the suspect, not the other way around, for starters). Both of these issues, however, can be fixed by editing and the content itself is worth keeping. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There was [a discussion] on this AfD at ANI. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now at [1] --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep As per Mendaliv's "still delete" opinion, I would like to express an opinion of "still keep" for the reasons previously stated in my "Strong Keep" explanation. BlueSalix (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:ONEEVENT. The existence of a media circus does not mean we should lower our BLP standards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Given that "The article will be undeleted just as soon as a conviction is recorded, "(Johnuniq) and considering the extreme unlikelihood that keeping this would damage the trial, deleting it now is a little nonsensical. I also agree with BlueSalix that the trial will be even more notable if there's an acquittal. WP BLP is not meant to contradict common sense. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:XBALL. And yes Lankiveil you are right in a sense of standards. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP BLP is being twisted around by those in fabour of delete here, it is not meant to contradict common sense. This is clearly a highly notable crime/trial which is also covered by extended sourcing. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point of the deletion argument. It's the crime/trial that is arguably notable, not Legebokoff himself. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article is covering the Trial of Cody Legebokoff, that deletion argument is mute.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm not sure where this AfD goes now since the move has happened. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 15:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A prosecution of someone for being a serial killer can be encyclopedic, when like this one there are multiple reliable news sources having significant coverage. Renaming the article to be about the trial rather than the individual is an improvement. Ideally the article would be about the crime or crimes rather than the alleged perpetrator, but the news stories used as refs do not provide such a common name for the set of killings. It would be a longish title if we moved the article to The killings of Jill Stuchenko, Cynthia Maas, Natasha Montgomery and Loren Leslie,. It is reminiscent of the awkwardness of titling the article about the three young women kidnapped in Cincinnatti. But apparently the police and the media did not nickname the series of killings,or the killer like BTK Killer or Hillside Strangler. Lacking a Jack the Ripper or Boston strangler title, an article about the trial seems the best option. The WP:BLP language calling for discretion is clearly not a ban on articles mentioning the names of those arrested or being tried for crimes. Wikipedia is not under the Sub judice requirements of British law preventing media mention of the accused. And even when the trial results in an acquittal, it is appropriate to have an article about it if there has been sufficient coverage to make it encyclopedic, such as George Zimmerman and State of Florida v. George Zimmerman and O. J. Simpson murder case and Death of Caylee Anthony, to mention but three notable acquittals. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire category of "People acquitted of murder" which presently has 158 entries. It would not be appropriate or encyclopedic to try and hush up all acquittals, any more than to stifle coverage of notable trials and crimes. Edison (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer – This article has been renamed to Trial of Cody Legebokoff. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 4 July 2014 (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.