Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Tramel

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. Neıl ☄ 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Tramel[edit]

James Tramel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Orphaned article on a criminal of marginal notability; he is not really a public figure so the article cannot expand beyond a simple description of his crimes into a proper biography. Most of the news stories regarding Tramel, save a CNN piece, are mostly local media. [1] east718 // talk // email // 01:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Passes WP:RS with flying colours (the "local media" are major publications -- Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune, Sacramento Bee). Passes WP:BIO and WP:V. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. Gamaliel (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems notable enough, per sources included ... not many convicted murderers become ordained priests.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (I created the article.) Neither the proposal nor the one vote of support cites any Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The pertinent guidelines is WP:BIO, where I think three points are relevant:
    • The top principle of WP:BIO is: 'The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.' I believe that the topic is interesting because it is extraordinary for a convicted criminal to be ordained to the priesthood. My opinion doesn't count, though, what counts is the opinion of the numerous news editors who have shown their agreement by running articles and opinion pieces about this man. The Interview with James Tramel by Paula Zahn on CNN is just one prominent example.
    • The basic criterion of WP:BIO is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." No one has disputed that James Tramel meets this criterion. The allusion to "local media" in the proposal would be irrelevant even if it were accurate (and the story got covered as far away as Turkey ); nothing in WP:BIO or WP:RS excludes local media from consideration. Since the article meets the "nutshell summary" of the guidelines, the burden is on those who wish to show that this article should be an exception to that rule.
    • Gamaliel's gibe about "police blotter" may be taken to be an allusion to one exception, which is WP:ONEVENT. This part of the guidelines excludes articles about people who are covered in a single news event. If Tramel were notable only for the single murder conviction that exception might apply. But that is not the case. The extensive news coverage about him over the past three years[1] is because of the uniqueness of his situation of being ordained a priest while in prison, the controversy over his parole (first denied, then granted), and the results of his subsequent work as a clergyman, and the additional attention this has focused on the earlier controversy. Mrhsj (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An unusual story that is notable enough and well sourced.--agr (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles that are unlikely to be expanded beyond stub status, likely to remain orphaned, and that cover subjects notable only because of single event news coverage (or, for that matter, only for being on minor league athletic teams and similar cases) don't need encyclopedia articles here. Not the worst thing in the world to keep, and if it turns out that the article could be expanded or linked from other relevant articles, let me know and I may reconsider my position. Croctotheface (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While there are unquestionably more notable topics, the subject is written about in multiple secondary RS for multiple events, so it passes the bar in my eyes. Celarnor Talk to me 05:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That argument would apply to all sorts of people and events written up in a handful of press articles. There are probably a bunch of local charity dinners that got coverage in a few reliable newspapers. Such topics, despite fulfilling WP:N, should not receive coverage in this encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a local charity dinner was held more than once and had extra-local coverage of more than one instance of the dinner, or coverage extraneous to the dinner itself, I would say they should certainly receive coverage in an encyclopedia. Celarnor Talk to me 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's no lower bound for you? Literally everything that is covered by multiple sources should have an encyclopedia article? I mean, I tried to think of a more trivial example, but I have a hard time. We're talking about a subject on which an encyclopedia would have basically nothing of value to say that could ever inform anyone. All that happened was that a bunch of people paid money and ate dinner, and the profits went to charity. That really should have an article here for all time? Croctotheface (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there's a lower bound for me, squarely sitting atop our policies on notability and verifiability. Things that don't receive multiple pieces of independent coverage don't belong here (RS, N, V). Things that are only notable for a single event don't go here (NOT#NEWS). Pretty much anything else is fine in my book. So, yeah, I guess, "everything that is covered in multiple reliable sources should have an encyclopedia article" is pretty much it in a nutshell. That's kind of the point. Celarnor Talk to me 04:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD reopened and relisted as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 20.

  • The AfD was closed early with this comment:
    • The result was rapidly deleted. We don't really do orphaned BLPs like this on random news stories with no wider connection to anything else, not when it's pretty much a one-event negative bio. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add further comments below this notice. Chick Bowen 02:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If his only claim to notability was his crime followed by conversion, I would buy a one-event delete. However he has resurfaced with allegations, marking a second event, even if the notoriety was somewhat inherited from the first. At this point, he is no longer a single-event pony, even though what we have to say about him is admittedly of limited scope. RayAYang (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; passes notability with some space to spare. Certainly verifiable. As for BLP1E, murder is a pretty strong one event; it got Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby and John Hinkley, Jr. (attempted, no less) articles for one event. This article seems to cover the major events of his life, which is what BLP1E was designed to avoid.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Reasonably past a ONEEVENT status, and there seems to be plenty of press coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E Sceptre (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a "one event" candidate for BLP based deletion. If it were just about the youthful thrillkilling, then BLP1E might apply. (But seeLeopold and Loeb). This is not a simple article about a murder, because it was followed by the ordination as an Episcopal priest while in prison for murder, and the eventualk release, which CNN noted as of sufficient interest to cover [2]. Then this was followed by the removal from serving at a church because of alleged sexual misconduct, which is a third point of possible notability, and fourth his supposed redemption in prison was a factor in a movement to amend the California laws regarding life imprisonment of children, Senate Bill 999 [3] . Edison2 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think BLP1E applies here when his notoriety is based on a series of events. He murdered, he became a priest in prison (which seems quite notable), he got paroled, then he abused his position by getting freaky with a parishioner. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 3 September 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.
  1. ^ http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="james+tramel"+episcopal&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&ned=us&btnGt=Show+Timeline
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Tramel&oldid=1137941749"