Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Murray

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 keep - but the article needs continued cleanup and watching per WP:BLP. Famous for a famous event, the subject is likely to remain in the news and he may yet have a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Murray[edit]

Conrad Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A thoroughly inappropriate WP:BLP1E in the middle of an ongoing and high-profile legal case. The initial justification for this article cited Murray's having "gained more than enough name recognition and notoriety to merit his own page". However, Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate anybody's "notoriety", and WP:BLP's in particular should not be fanning flames. If Murray is confirmed (and not just anonymously suspected) to have had a role in the death of Michael Jackson, and is formally found liable (e.g., through a criminal conviction), then--maybe--he would warrant an article of his own. As it stands, however, the subject of this article needs a bodyguard due to assumptions that may or may not be ultimately verified; he is covered sufficiently (perhaps even excessively) already in Death of Michael Jackson, and he does not need to be subjected to presumptions of independent notability that could, if ultimately discredited, be construed as massive defamation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lets wait to see if he is charged with manslaughter until we make an article. Portillo (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's unknown if he killed MJ. Fails WP:ONEVENT. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nomination, to which I have nothing to add. Fails BLP. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, BLP, and the emphasis is clearly undue. Anything that would need to be mentioned could be mentioned on one of many Michael Jackson related pages. This would be a POV content fork at very best. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirectClosing admin, please don't read this as a Keep opinion WP:BLP1E most definitely applies here. The biographical information is irrelevant to the overall notability of the man. What little information is there is already covered at Death of Michael Jackson. The only useful part of the article, "The doctor, who joined Jackson's camp in May 2009 as part of his London concert agreement with AEG Live, has been interviewed by police twice but has not been considered a suspect in the singer's death. Officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration executed a warrant at Dr Conrad Murray's offices in Houston, Texas reportedly looking for "items constituting evidence of the offense of manslaughter". [4][5][6]" is found in the Death of Michael Jackson article as "Los Angeles police said the doctor spoke to officers immediately after Jackson's death, and during an extensive interview two days later. They stressed that they found "no red flag" and do not suspect foul play.[46]" That information could (not necessarily) be incorporated into the Death of Michael Jackson article, but the rest needs to go. NW (Talk) 01:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to chuckle at being 'bot notified of this discussion as the supposed "creator" of the article. I created a redirect. And that remains my opinion as to what should be here. You don't need deletion to solve this. Just revert back to either this version or this version of the page. Cosmic Latte, you could have just done that. Uncle G (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have to agree and wait until the whole thing unfolds. Once his culpability is revealed one way or another, we could always simply merge. To delete it now would definitely be premature.--Hourick (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed way too early to create this article until such time as there is some other "event" in addition to being "subject to" an "investigation" that "anonymous sources" have characterized without discussing in detail. With all of the embellishment being added by reporters, this article is a BLP nightmare. The article already lists judgments which apparently have nothing to do with medical judgment or qualifications, incidents which apparently occurred at a clinic prior to the time that he joined or invested in that clinic, and on, and on. An encyclopedia should not be working to get ahead of a breaking and developing news story. Steveozone (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wonder which wiki 'super' editor came up with this AFD. I suppose you are considering AFD because he this guy is 'not-notable' right? ;-) He who dies with the most deletes wins! This is exactly the kind of case that demonstrates the lunacy of the wikipedia AFD patrol. If you guys cant agree what makes a living person notable and create a written policy, then every single article in wikipedia about a living person can be considered for AFD. Clearly in this case daily top billing on google news and almost every other daily news outlet for more than a month is still not notable? 88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.32.192.111 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)— 119.32.192.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Was the "wiki 'super' editor" supposed to dignify this sort of attitude with a response? If so, then the "written policy" that you seek is WP:BLP, and it is mentioned, in the nomination, as the reason for the nomination. Another policy, which you didn't ask for and which I shouldn't have to mention, but will mention anyway because you've made it relevant, is WP:NPA. We "wiki 'super' editors" are living people too, y'know... Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Also see WP:BIO, which includes WP:ONEEVENT, which in turn links to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Depending on how things unfold, Murray could very well end up warranting his own article. Or, he could fade into obscurity as some other factor comes to light. But, even despite our best guesses (and I'm not pretending that I have no guesses of my own), we just don't know how things are going to unfold. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Dr. Murray has emerged as a central figure in the Michael Jackson investigation. There are thousands upon thousands of news articles about him, and that has increased dramatically in the past few days as he becomes the main suspect in Michael Jackson's death. KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E. Another Michael Jackson article....Don't people read WP:RECENTISM before deciding to write an article? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based upon the raids/manslaughter allegation. But then I loathe the playing of WP:BLP1E Francium12 (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Death of Michael Jackson as a likely search term. If something changes that makes this person more notable, i.e. either being charged or convicted of manslaughter then it mught by worth reconsidering but at the moment it's defintely a case of one event and redirect is most appropiate. Dpmuk (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, but keep it short. Even if the guy was not notable, he is getting there! I respect WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, but at the same time I cannot ignore reality: constant investigations; breaking news in tv networks about him; main issue in cnn.com; central figure in a case of world-wide interest. For me this is notability!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this guy is making headlines in all the major news sources, this is obviously a keep. 128.101.35.77 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And in 2 weeks, some other non-notable person will be making headlines in all the major news services for one event....and their article will be WP:BLP1E too. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect So much coverage makes this a WP:BLP violation by immplication, and WP:Oneevent also applies.YobMod 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per User:Francium12. Gage (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This guy is central to the death of Michael Jackson. He's the last person Michael saw, you've got Latoya Jackson claiming he's murdered Michael, numerous news sources digging into his background, etc. With a little bit of clean-up, the article can be substantial and notable. - Enter Movie (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what being "central" to someone's death means, but if it involves numerous news sources digging and quoting Latoya Jackson's opinions about someone, it sounds like it means "in the tabloids." Steveozone (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep it until the toxicology results are revealed, The investigators suspect some Elvis-Quality drug abuse relating to the death of Michael Jackson Darbacour (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The possibility that someone might deserve an article in the future doesn't mean that they should have one now. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability established. Evan1975 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying "notability established" doesn't make it so. Please explain further. NW (Talk) 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: no notability outside this one incident, and that's how we typically handle people who are known for one issue where the issue is more notable than they are. Auntie E. 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I looked in the Death of Michael Jackson article after they executed the search warrant and I found nothing. I assume all the information on this man being investigated will go in that article if he is found innocent (wait, correction, this HAS been added to the article)? Funny, if I didn't participate in editing Wikipedia I probably would have forgotten the Michael Jackson story by now. Every time there's a major development I feel the need to go look at how Wikipedia is covering it. The investigation of this man sure is getting fair and balanced treatment here. My guess is you can't say the same for the news media.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am the one who created the page this time. I did this because I wanted to know a little bit more about this person as an individual than what I was finding in the death of Michael Jackson article or what I was hearing or seeing in the news. When I started I probably should've used the word notability as opposed to notoriety. No slant or bias was intended.I am not a regular wiki editor. Just a user who wanted to know a little bit more about the person. For the same reason, I also started the Arnold Klein and Debbie Rowe articles. No one seems to have a problem with those, (Unless I just opened a big can of worms) I still believe his notability is worthy of an independent article. I also believe such article can and should be done as objectively as possible.Tlatseg (talk)contributions 10:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would agree with the others that are saying to just wait. If he is convicted, then I'd go with a strong delete. If not, then a keep. His attention has grown over the past month, and local authorities said that he was not hiding anything. Either or, for now I'll go with a Push. ConCompS (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I hope Tlatseg will forgive me for making sure his/her comment was correctly formatted. We want each side's views to be easy to identify. ConCompS, are you sure you don't mean delete if he is acquitted? He would almost certainly not be notable if he was.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Vchimpanzee, thank you for fixing the formatTlatseg (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To clear stuff up with Vchimpanzee, A: Don't delete if he is deemed not guilty and B: Strong delete IF he is guilty. I'm still at a Push. And before anyone gets at me asking me "What is a push?", a push would mean "clean the article up". ConCompS (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (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/Conrad_Murray&oldid=1137731790"